Oracle licensing with disk replication

[Hubler, Daniel]

We started work on a 2nd data center 2 years ago, and the equipment to make it functional is starting to come together.

One of the things that is happening is using Hitachi storage and replicating everything in the primary data center
to the secondary.

So we end up with a bunch of storage frames at the 2nd location containing exact copies of the disk at our primary location.

The folks who manage our contracts are telling us that Oracle corp. is being a pain,
and demanding compensation for these replicated copies of their software, which basically sit idle.

Personally, I can see how Oracle would want a piece of this, because we do derive benefit from it.

The contract folks are suggesting that ONLY Oracle corp. is behaving this way.
None of our other vendors.

Does this jive with other people's experience?


Thanks for your input.

[Chris Taylor]

It depends - Oracle sales does this and tells you it has to be licensed.

I worked for a company that had this exact issue and what it boiled down to
was the following:

"Only servers that have the binaries installed are subject to licensing" -
Per the lawyers from that work.

So, [not being a license expert or a law person], I would believe that as
long as the Oracle binaries are NOT presented to a running server, there is
no licensing implication.
However, if you have installed the binaries AND they are present on a
running server, there's a really good chance your in violation of the
licensing agreement.

http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/pricing/olsa-ire-v122304-070683.pdf

If you look at all the different licensing options in the above link such
as "Processor" or "Named User" etc, they all refer to "where the Oracle
programs are installed and/or running". The lawyers found in our case that
we owned the data, while Oracle owns the binaries/software. So we were
free to replicate our data to an offsite DR machine as much as we wanted
and then we could present the software up to 10 days a year for DR
testing. Then remove the software after those tests.

Chris

Post by Hubler, Daniel
We started work on a 2nd data center 2 years ago, and the equipment to
make it functional is starting to come together.
One of the things that is happening is using Hitachi storage and
replicating everything in the primary data center
to the secondary.
So we end up with a bunch of storage frames at the 2nd location
containing exact copies of the disk at our primary location.
The folks who manage our contracts are telling us that Oracle corp. is being a pain,
and demanding compensation for these replicated copies of their software,
which basically sit idle.
Personally, I can see how Oracle would want a piece of this, because we do
derive benefit from it.
The contract folks are suggesting that ONLY Oracle corp. is behaving this way.
None of our other vendors.
Does this jive with other people’s experience?
Thanks for your input.

[Stefan Knecht]

This has the relevant answers you're looking for:

https://www.oracle.com/assets/data-recovery-licensing-070587.pdf

But, that document is not a legal contract. If you are in a large corp, get
your legal representatives on this and have them deal with the Oracle sales
guys.

Otherwise, licensing specialty firms may help - there's a bunch of them out
there you can easily find via google. Their fees are negligible compared to
the full costs of paying the licenses and support back to the time where
they were first deployed, which I've personally seen quickly escalate into
millions.



On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 4:26 AM Chris Taylor <

Post by Chris Taylor
It depends - Oracle sales does this and tells you it has to be licensed.
I worked for a company that had this exact issue and what it boiled down
"Only servers that have the binaries installed are subject to licensing" -
Per the lawyers from that work.
So, [not being a license expert or a law person], I would believe that as
long as the Oracle binaries are NOT presented to a running server, there is
no licensing implication.
However, if you have installed the binaries AND they are present on a
running server, there's a really good chance your in violation of the
licensing agreement.
http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/pricing/olsa-ire-v122304-070683.pdf
If you look at all the different licensing options in the above link such
as "Processor" or "Named User" etc, they all refer to "where the Oracle
programs are installed and/or running". The lawyers found in our case that
we owned the data, while Oracle owns the binaries/software. So we were
free to replicate our data to an offsite DR machine as much as we wanted
and then we could present the software up to 10 days a year for DR
testing. Then remove the software after those tests.
Chris

Post by Hubler, Daniel
We started work on a 2nd data center 2 years ago, and the equipment to
make it functional is starting to come together.
One of the things that is happening is using Hitachi storage and
replicating everything in the primary data center
to the secondary.
So we end up with a bunch of storage frames at the 2nd location
containing exact copies of the disk at our primary location.
The folks who manage our contracts are telling us that Oracle corp. is being a pain,
and demanding compensation for these replicated copies of their software,
which basically sit idle.
Personally, I can see how Oracle would want a piece of this, because we
do derive benefit from it.
The contract folks are suggesting that ONLY Oracle corp. is behaving this way.
None of our other vendors.
Does this jive with other people’s experience?
Thanks for your input.

[l***@bluewin.ch]

Hi,
I strongly suggest you to get support from an independend Oracle licensing specialist. That seems to be a marignal case.
My own licensing knowledge is sketchy. From what I know it would be important if you have active databases running on your secondary site and if yes how often they run and for how long.
I would sign that Oracle licencing is tough, but from what I heared Microsoft is not better.
Without help of an specialist that is like going to court without a lawyer.
Regards
Lothar
----UrsprÃŒngliche Nachricht----
Von : ***@aurora.org
Datum : 12/11/2018 - 22:00 (MN)
An : oracle-***@freelists.org
Betreff : Oracle licensing with disk replication
We started work on a 2nd data center 2 years ago, and the equipment to make it functional is starting to come together.

One of the things that is happening is using Hitachi storage and replicating everything in the primary data center
to the secondary.

So we end up with a bunch of storage frames at the 2nd location containing exact copies of the disk at our primary location.

The folks who manage our contracts are telling us that Oracle corp. is being a pain,
and demanding compensation for these replicated copies of their software, which basically sit idle.

Personally, I can see how Oracle would want a piece of this, because we do derive benefit from it.

The contract folks are suggesting that ONLY Oracle corp. is behaving this way.
None of our other vendors.

Does this jive with other people’s experience?


Thanks for your input.

[d***@comcast.net]

Been there done that.

Oracle licensing has got to the point of actual number of copies of the software is what you must pay for, yes the same applies to SQL Server.



One of oracle’s older documents on DR style setups give some leeway for a clustered environment with single SAN and ff it is simply a remote mirror or copy then it must be licensed. Also note the fine print that this is only relative to the time the document was produced and cannot be put in any contract. (March 20,2014)

https://www.oracle.com/assets/data-recovery-licensing-070587.pdf



I have not been able to find an updated version of this document.





From: oracle-l-***@freelists.org <oracle-l-***@freelists.org> On Behalf Of ***@bluewin.ch
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 12:29 AM
To: ***@aurora.org
Cc: oracle-***@freelists.org
Subject: Re: Oracle licensing with disk replication



Hi,



I strongly suggest you to get support from an independend Oracle licensing specialist. That seems to be a marignal case.

My own licensing knowledge is sketchy. From what I know it would be important if you have active databases running on your secondary site and if yes how often they run and for how long.

I would sign that Oracle licencing is tough, but from what I heared Microsoft is not better.

Without help of an specialist that is like going to court without a lawyer.



Regards



Lothar

----UrsprÃŒngliche Nachricht----
Von : ***@aurora.org <mailto:***@aurora.org>
Datum : 12/11/2018 - 22:00 (MN)
An : oracle-***@freelists.org <mailto:oracle-***@freelists.org>
Betreff : Oracle licensing with disk replication

We started work on a 2nd data center 2 years ago, and the equipment to make it functional is starting to come together.



One of the things that is happening is using Hitachi storage and replicating everything in the primary data center

to the secondary.



So we end up with a bunch of storage frames at the 2nd location containing exact copies of the disk at our primary location.



The folks who manage our contracts are telling us that Oracle corp. is being a pain,

and demanding compensation for these replicated copies of their software, which basically sit idle.



Personally, I can see how Oracle would want a piece of this, because we do derive benefit from it.



The contract folks are suggesting that ONLY Oracle corp. is behaving this way.

None of our other vendors.



Does this jive with other people’s experience?





Thanks for your input.

[Hubler, Daniel]

I do not think I asked my question very well. . . . . . .

My real question is: Is it only ORACLE who is being such. . . . sticklers?


Our contracts folks are suggesting that no other vendor. . . . with all the software that is being replicated. . . . is behaving like this.

?????




From: ***@comcast.net [mailto:***@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 3:34 AM
To: ***@bluewin.ch; Hubler, Daniel
Cc: oracle-***@freelists.org
Subject: RE: Oracle licensing with disk replication

Been there done that.
Oracle licensing has got to the point of actual number of copies of the software is what you must pay for, yes the same applies to SQL Server.

One of oracle’s older documents on DR style setups give some leeway for a clustered environment with single SAN and ff it is simply a remote mirror or copy then it must be licensed. Also note the fine print that this is only relative to the time the document was produced and cannot be put in any contract. (March 20,2014)
https://www.oracle.com/assets/data-recovery-licensing-070587.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.oracle.com_assets_data-2Drecovery-2Dlicensing-2D070587.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FdThBvJHxSAZ8-R9NIS_sODV3ezb9Po6yjZ5Lt_XtNs&r=YSSKXQ0_Lrv3cQCUPgcr3rnHB3G_K3yVFuEU4i6dvBI&m=JxsFzG5H_nH0FVGUxZVT-flQt_EMoAwDxnpHhLEVCoE&s=TLbTvTX9hg6ClnLtPiqAkEtm5Wps95bGPCCh4KNMTT4&e=>

I have not been able to find an updated version of this document.


From: oracle-l-***@freelists.org <oracle-l-***@freelists.org> On Behalf Of ***@bluewin.ch
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 12:29 AM
To: ***@aurora.org
Cc: oracle-***@freelists.org
Subject: Re: Oracle licensing with disk replication

Hi,

I strongly suggest you to get support from an independend Oracle licensing specialist. That seems to be a marignal case.
My own licensing knowledge is sketchy. From what I know it would be important if you have active databases running on your secondary site and if yes how often they run and for how long.
I would sign that Oracle licencing is tough, but from what I heared Microsoft is not better.
Without help of an specialist that is like going to court without a lawyer.

Regards

Lothar
----UrsprÃŒngliche Nachricht----
Von : ***@aurora.org<mailto:***@aurora.org>
Datum : 12/11/2018 - 22:00 (MN)
An : oracle-***@freelists.org<mailto:oracle-***@freelists.org>
Betreff : Oracle licensing with disk replication
We started work on a 2nd data center 2 years ago, and the equipment to make it functional is starting to come together.

One of the things that is happening is using Hitachi storage and replicating everything in the primary data center
to the secondary.

So we end up with a bunch of storage frames at the 2nd location containing exact copies of the disk at our primary location.

The folks who manage our contracts are telling us that Oracle corp. is being a pain,
and demanding compensation for these replicated copies of their software, which basically sit idle.

Personally, I can see how Oracle would want a piece of this, because we do derive benefit from it.

The contract folks are suggesting that ONLY Oracle corp. is behaving this way.
None of our other vendors.

Does this jive with other people’s experience?


Thanks for your input.

[d***@comcast.net]

Yes other vendors such as Microsoft act the same, once work besides patching is done to it, specifically synchronization. They even have if you had a cold server on the remote site and flipped your primary server license to it, you cannot move that license back to PROD for 90 days.

IBM does the same. They consider mirroring to be doing work and therefore requiring licensing Entitlements for the remote server.



From: oracle-l-***@freelists.org <oracle-l-***@freelists.org> On Behalf Of Hubler, Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 5:49 AM
To: 'oracle-***@freelists.org' <oracle-***@freelists.org>
Subject: FW: Oracle licensing with disk replication



I do not think I asked my question very well. . . . . . .



My real question is: Is it only ORACLE who is being such. . . . sticklers?





Our contracts folks are suggesting that no other vendor. . . . with all the software that is being replicated. . . . is behaving like this.



?????







From: ***@comcast.net <mailto:***@comcast.net> [mailto:***@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 3:34 AM
To: ***@bluewin.ch <mailto:***@bluewin.ch> ; Hubler, Daniel
Cc: oracle-***@freelists.org <mailto:oracle-***@freelists.org>
Subject: RE: Oracle licensing with disk replication



Been there done that.

Oracle licensing has got to the point of actual number of copies of the software is what you must pay for, yes the same applies to SQL Server.



One of oracle’s older documents on DR style setups give some leeway for a clustered environment with single SAN and ff it is simply a remote mirror or copy then it must be licensed. Also note the fine print that this is only relative to the time the document was produced and cannot be put in any contract. (March 20,2014)

https://www.oracle.com/assets/data-recovery-licensing-070587.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.oracle.com_assets_data-2Drecovery-2Dlicensing-2D070587.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FdThBvJHxSAZ8-R9NIS_sODV3ezb9Po6yjZ5Lt_XtNs&r=YSSKXQ0_Lrv3cQCUPgcr3rnHB3G_K3yVFuEU4i6dvBI&m=JxsFzG5H_nH0FVGUxZVT-flQt_EMoAwDxnpHhLEVCoE&s=TLbTvTX9hg6ClnLtPiqAkEtm5Wps95bGPCCh4KNMTT4&e=>



I have not been able to find an updated version of this document.





From: oracle-l-***@freelists.org <mailto:oracle-l-***@freelists.org> <oracle-l-***@freelists.org <mailto:oracle-l-***@freelists.org> > On Behalf Of ***@bluewin.ch <mailto:***@bluewin.ch>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 12:29 AM
To: ***@aurora.org <mailto:***@aurora.org>
Cc: oracle-***@freelists.org <mailto:oracle-***@freelists.org>
Subject: Re: Oracle licensing with disk replication



Hi,



I strongly suggest you to get support from an independend Oracle licensing specialist. That seems to be a marignal case.

My own licensing knowledge is sketchy. From what I know it would be important if you have active databases running on your secondary site and if yes how often they run and for how long.

I would sign that Oracle licencing is tough, but from what I heared Microsoft is not better.

Without help of an specialist that is like going to court without a lawyer.



Regards



Lothar

----UrsprÃŒngliche Nachricht----
Von : ***@aurora.org <mailto:***@aurora.org>
Datum : 12/11/2018 - 22:00 (MN)
An : oracle-***@freelists.org <mailto:oracle-***@freelists.org>
Betreff : Oracle licensing with disk replication

We started work on a 2nd data center 2 years ago, and the equipment to make it functional is starting to come together.



One of the things that is happening is using Hitachi storage and replicating everything in the primary data center

to the secondary.



So we end up with a bunch of storage frames at the 2nd location containing exact copies of the disk at our primary location.



The folks who manage our contracts are telling us that Oracle corp. is being a pain,

and demanding compensation for these replicated copies of their software, which basically sit idle.



Personally, I can see how Oracle would want a piece of this, because we do derive benefit from it.



The contract folks are suggesting that ONLY Oracle corp. is behaving this way.

None of our other vendors.



Does this jive with other people’s experience?





Thanks for your input.

[l***@bluewin.ch]

In one sentence: All big vendors are greedy.
----UrsprÃŒngliche Nachricht----
Von : ***@comcast.net
Datum : 13/11/2018 - 15:04 (MN)
An : ***@aurora.org, oracle-***@freelists.org
Betreff : RE: Oracle licensing with disk replication
Yes other vendors such as Microsoft act the same, once work besides patching is done to it, specifically synchronization. They even have if you had a cold server on the remote site and flipped your primary server license to it, you cannot move that license back to PROD for 90 days.
IBM does the same. They consider mirroring to be doing work and therefore requiring licensing Entitlements for the remote server.


From: oracle-l-***@freelists.org <oracle-l-***@freelists.org> On Behalf Of Hubler, Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 5:49 AM
To: 'oracle-***@freelists.org' <oracle-***@freelists.org>
Subject: FW: Oracle licensing with disk replication

I do not think I asked my question very well. . . . . . .

My real question is: Is it only ORACLE who is being such. . . . sticklers?


Our contracts folks are suggesting that no other vendor. . . . with all the software that is being replicated. . . . is behaving like this.

?????



From: ***@comcast.net [mailto:***@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 3:34 AM
To: ***@bluewin.ch; Hubler, Daniel
Cc: oracle-***@freelists.org
Subject: RE: Oracle licensing with disk replication

Been there done that.
Oracle licensing has got to the point of actual number of copies of the software is what you must pay for, yes the same applies to SQL Server.

One of oracle’s older documents on DR style setups give some leeway for a clustered environment with single SAN and ff it is simply a remote mirror or copy then it must be licensed. Also note the fine print that this is only relative to the time the document was produced and cannot be put in any contract. (March 20,2014)
https://www.oracle.com/assets/data-recovery-licensing-070587.pdf

I have not been able to find an updated version of this document.


From: oracle-l-***@freelists.org <oracle-l-***@freelists.org> On Behalf Of ***@bluewin.ch
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 12:29 AM
To: ***@aurora.org
Cc: oracle-***@freelists.org
Subject: Re: Oracle licensing with disk replication

Hi,

I strongly suggest you to get support from an independend Oracle licensing specialist. That seems to be a marignal case.
My own licensing knowledge is sketchy. From what I know it would be important if you have active databases running on your secondary site and if yes how often they run and for how long.
I would sign that Oracle licencing is tough, but from what I heared Microsoft is not better.
Without help of an specialist that is like going to court without a lawyer.

Regards

Lothar
----UrsprÃŒngliche Nachricht----
Von : ***@aurora.org
Datum : 12/11/2018 - 22:00 (MN)
An : oracle-***@freelists.org
Betreff : Oracle licensing with disk replication
We started work on a 2nd data center 2 years ago, and the equipment to make it functional is starting to come together.

One of the things that is happening is using Hitachi storage and replicating everything in the primary data center
to the secondary.

So we end up with a bunch of storage frames at the 2nd location containing exact copies of the disk at our primary location.

The folks who manage our contracts are telling us that Oracle corp. is being a pain,
and demanding compensation for these replicated copies of their software, which basically sit idle.

Personally, I can see how Oracle would want a piece of this, because we do derive benefit from it.

The contract folks are suggesting that ONLY Oracle corp. is behaving this way.
None of our other vendors.

Does this jive with other people’s experience?


Thanks for your input.

[p***@gmail.com]

(Some of this already stated
)



Having watched a few of the webinars from the licensing experts the suggested route if you want to argue this is this. You state that you want to do whatever the contract requires and you will wait for Oracle legal dept. to contact your legal dept. and you will do whatever is in the contract. Don’t get any other groups involved, all legal to legal and hopefully you have some tough lawyers on your team. It is good at this point to ensure your legal dept. has some understanding of the terms of the contract and what they mean. If you are talking big $$ hire one of the Oracle licensing consulting companies. House of brick is one, there is another but can’t think of the name right now.



On another note. Having just finished some training related to startups and pricing there is a reality here that falls on “us” in regards to pricing. Enterprise sales has traditionally been very hard and very expensive. If corporate IT departments take 6-12 months (or 2 years) to make decisions and move forward with purchase decisions that will ultimately be factored into the price of a product. Somebody has to pay for those sales teams. (Level of support expected also factors in and corps expect a lot usually). A lot of the “new” vendors are leveraging much lighter sales/support channels and can afford to be more competitive. Oracle needs to pivot here and my own opinion is that won’t happen until L.E. is gone.



Licensing is always a fun conversation. I know of a company that recently forked over more 1+ million because of VM issues and they probably could have avoided it had they hired some experts here.



One guess is they will come at you with hey you now owe us X million but for a X/2 you can buy a site license and never have to worry about these things again.



I would be careful about publishing any details about your config and company you work for here or on any public forum. You may be in compliance but even a misunderstanding on the part of the right reader could end up with a sudden inquiry from a sales rep.



Thanks,

Ethan

arclogicsoftware.com

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ethanraypost/











From: oracle-l-***@freelists.org <oracle-l-***@freelists.org> On Behalf Of ***@bluewin.ch
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 8:16 AM
To: ***@comcast.net
Cc: oracle-***@freelists.org; ***@aurora.org
Subject: Re: RE: Oracle licensing with disk replication



In one sentence: All big vendors are greedy.

----UrsprÃŒngliche Nachricht----
Von : ***@comcast.net <mailto:***@comcast.net>
Datum : 13/11/2018 - 15:04 (MN)
An : ***@aurora.org <mailto:***@aurora.org> , oracle-***@freelists.org <mailto:oracle-***@freelists.org>
Betreff : RE: Oracle licensing with disk replication

Yes other vendors such as Microsoft act the same, once work besides patching is done to it, specifically synchronization. They even have if you had a cold server on the remote site and flipped your primary server license to it, you cannot move that license back to PROD for 90 days.

IBM does the same. They consider mirroring to be doing work and therefore requiring licensing Entitlements for the remote server.

[Iggy Fernandez]

I can also recommend Redwood Compliance who have also written several licensing articles for the NoCOUG Journal

The Northern California Oracle Users Group is a volunteer-run 501(c)(3) organization that has been serving the Oracle Database community of Northern California for more than thirty years by organizing four conferences a year and publishing a quarterly journal. Download the complete digital archive of the NoCOUG Journal using: “wget www.nocoug.org/Journal/NoCOUG_Journal_{2001..2018}{02..12..3}.pdf”<http://www.nocoug.org/Journal/NoCOUG_Journal_{2001..2018}{02..12..3}.pdf”>.

________________________________
From: oracle-l-***@freelists.org <oracle-l-***@freelists.org> on behalf of ***@gmail.com <***@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 7:18 AM
To: ***@bluewin.ch; ***@comcast.net
Cc: oracle-***@freelists.org; ***@aurora.org
Subject: RE: RE: Oracle licensing with disk replication


(Some of this already stated…)



Having watched a few of the webinars from the licensing experts the suggested route if you want to argue this is this. You state that you want to do whatever the contract requires and you will wait for Oracle legal dept. to contact your legal dept. and you will do whatever is in the contract. Don’t get any other groups involved, all legal to legal and hopefully you have some tough lawyers on your team. It is good at this point to ensure your legal dept. has some understanding of the terms of the contract and what they mean. If you are talking big $$ hire one of the Oracle licensing consulting companies. House of brick is one, there is another but can’t think of the name right now.



On another note. Having just finished some training related to startups and pricing there is a reality here that falls on “us” in regards to pricing. Enterprise sales has traditionally been very hard and very expensive. If corporate IT departments take 6-12 months (or 2 years) to make decisions and move forward with purchase decisions that will ultimately be factored into the price of a product. Somebody has to pay for those sales teams. (Level of support expected also factors in and corps expect a lot usually). A lot of the “new” vendors are leveraging much lighter sales/support channels and can afford to be more competitive. Oracle needs to pivot here and my own opinion is that won’t happen until L.E. is gone.



Licensing is always a fun conversation. I know of a company that recently forked over more 1+ million because of VM issues and they probably could have avoided it had they hired some experts here.



One guess is they will come at you with hey you now owe us X million but for a X/2 you can buy a site license and never have to worry about these things again.



I would be careful about publishing any details about your config and company you work for here or on any public forum. You may be in compliance but even a misunderstanding on the part of the right reader could end up with a sudden inquiry from a sales rep.



Thanks,

Ethan

arclogicsoftware.com

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ethanraypost/











From: oracle-l-***@freelists.org <oracle-l-***@freelists.org> On Behalf Of ***@bluewin.ch
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 8:16 AM
To: ***@comcast.net
Cc: oracle-***@freelists.org; ***@aurora.org
Subject: Re: RE: Oracle licensing with disk replication



In one sentence: All big vendors are greedy.

----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----
Von : ***@comcast.net<mailto:***@comcast.net>
Datum : 13/11/2018 - 15:04 (MN)
An : ***@aurora.org<mailto:***@aurora.org>, oracle-***@freelists.org<mailto:oracle-***@freelists.org>
Betreff : RE: Oracle licensing with disk replication

Yes other vendors such as Microsoft act the same, once work besides patching is done to it, specifically synchronization. They even have if you had a cold server on the remote site and flipped your primary server license to it, you cannot move that license back to PROD for 90 days.

IBM does the same. They consider mirroring to be doing work and therefore requiring licensing Entitlements for the remote server.

[Iggy Fernandez]

It would therefore seem that Oracle is the most generous since all the contracts say is "processors where the software is installed and/or running"


The Northern California Oracle Users Group is a volunteer-run 501(c)(3) organization that has been serving the Oracle Database community of Northern California for more than thirty years by organizing four conferences a year and publishing a quarterly journal. Download the complete digital archive of the NoCOUG Journal using: “wget www.nocoug.org/Journal/NoCOUG_Journal_{2001..2018}{02..12..3}.pdf”.

________________________________
From: oracle-l-***@freelists.org <oracle-l-***@freelists.org> on behalf of ***@comcast.net <***@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 6:04 AM
To: ***@aurora.org; oracle-***@freelists.org
Subject: RE: Oracle licensing with disk replication


Yes other vendors such as Microsoft act the same, once work besides patching is done to it, specifically synchronization. They even have if you had a cold server on the remote site and flipped your primary server license to it, you cannot move that license back to PROD for 90 days.

IBM does the same. They consider mirroring to be doing work and therefore requiring licensing Entitlements for the remote server.



From: oracle-l-***@freelists.org <oracle-l-***@freelists.org> On Behalf Of Hubler, Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 5:49 AM
To: 'oracle-***@freelists.org' <oracle-***@freelists.org>
Subject: FW: Oracle licensing with disk replication



I do not think I asked my question very well. . . . . . .



My real question is: Is it only ORACLE who is being such. . . . sticklers?





Our contracts folks are suggesting that no other vendor. . . . with all the software that is being replicated. . . . is behaving like this.



?????







From: ***@comcast.net<mailto:***@comcast.net> [mailto:***@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 3:34 AM
To: ***@bluewin.ch<mailto:***@bluewin.ch>; Hubler, Daniel
Cc: oracle-***@freelists.org<mailto:oracle-***@freelists.org>
Subject: RE: Oracle licensing with disk replication



Been there done that.

Oracle licensing has got to the point of actual number of copies of the software is what you must pay for, yes the same applies to SQL Server.



One of oracle’s older documents on DR style setups give some leeway for a clustered environment with single SAN and ff it is simply a remote mirror or copy then it must be licensed. Also note the fine print that this is only relative to the time the document was produced and cannot be put in any contract. (March 20,2014)

https://www.oracle.com/assets/data-recovery-licensing-070587.pdf<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.oracle.com_assets_data-2Drecovery-2Dlicensing-2D070587.pdf%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DFdThBvJHxSAZ8-R9NIS_sODV3ezb9Po6yjZ5Lt_XtNs%26r%3DYSSKXQ0_Lrv3cQCUPgcr3rnHB3G_K3yVFuEU4i6dvBI%26m%3DJxsFzG5H_nH0FVGUxZVT-flQt_EMoAwDxnpHhLEVCoE%26s%3DTLbTvTX9hg6ClnLtPiqAkEtm5Wps95bGPCCh4KNMTT4%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7C%7C07ec34c3bed04205b8c308d6497155aa%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636777148463539897&sdata=DhLROuiankThAhWW5RmMkO0Sa199ogfXjMSP%2FcVDTWs%3D&reserved=0>



I have not been able to find an updated version of this document.





From: oracle-l-***@freelists.org<mailto:oracle-l-***@freelists.org> <oracle-l-***@freelists.org<mailto:oracle-l-***@freelists.org>> On Behalf Of ***@bluewin.ch<mailto:***@bluewin.ch>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 12:29 AM
To: ***@aurora.org<mailto:***@aurora.org>
Cc: oracle-***@freelists.org<mailto:oracle-***@freelists.org>
Subject: Re: Oracle licensing with disk replication



Hi,



I strongly suggest you to get support from an independend Oracle licensing specialist. That seems to be a marignal case.

My own licensing knowledge is sketchy. From what I know it would be important if you have active databases running on your secondary site and if yes how often they run and for how long.

I would sign that Oracle licencing is tough, but from what I heared Microsoft is not better.

Without help of an specialist that is like going to court without a lawyer.



Regards



Lothar

----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----
Von : ***@aurora.org<mailto:***@aurora.org>
Datum : 12/11/2018 - 22:00 (MN)
An : oracle-***@freelists.org<mailto:oracle-***@freelists.org>
Betreff : Oracle licensing with disk replication

We started work on a 2nd data center 2 years ago, and the equipment to make it functional is starting to come together.



One of the things that is happening is using Hitachi storage and replicating everything in the primary data center

to the secondary.



So we end up with a bunch of storage frames at the 2nd location containing exact copies of the disk at our primary location.



The folks who manage our contracts are telling us that Oracle corp. is being a pain,

and demanding compensation for these replicated copies of their software, which basically sit idle.



Personally, I can see how Oracle would want a piece of this, because we do derive benefit from it.



The contract folks are suggesting that ONLY Oracle corp. is behaving this way.

None of our other vendors.



Does this jive with other people’s experience?





Thanks for your input.

[Mladen Gogala]

Post by d***@comcast.net
Been there done that.
Oracle licensing has got to the point of actual number of copies of
the software is what you must pay for, yes the same applies to SQL Server.

SQL Server is much cheaper than Oracle.

[Noveljic Nenad]

You’re right, looking at the $$$/core metric, SQL Server is definitely cheaper. Alas, there are some non-obvious, yet substantial total cost of ownership (TCO) contributors worth considering.

For example, Hyper-V won’t let you scale. I mean you might start hitting virtualization software bottlenecks before completely loading the CPUs. In the end, you might be needing more licenses than you planned for.

On the other hand, some expensive Oracle features are free of charge in SQL Server, like PDB, partitioning, BI etc. Also, SQL Server has a perfect integration with Active Directory which can save quite some time with user administration.

I’m not advocating one or the other, just trying to highlight some facts relevant for decision making.

Best regards,

Nenad

https://nenadnoveljic.com/blog/

From: oracle-l-***@freelists.org <oracle-l-***@freelists.org> On Behalf Of Mladen Gogala
Sent: Mittwoch, 14. November 2018 09:20
To: oracle-***@freelists.org
Subject: Re: Oracle licensing with disk replication



On 11/13/18 4:33 AM, ***@comcast.net<mailto:***@comcast.net> wrote:
Been there done that.
Oracle licensing has got to the point of actual number of copies of the software is what you must pay for, yes the same applies to SQL Server.



SQL Server is much cheaper than Oracle.

____________________________________________________
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Bitte denken Sie an die Umwelt, bevor Sie dieses E-Mail drucken.

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css">p { font-family: Arial;font-size:9pt }</style>
</head>
<body>
<p>
<br>Important Notice</br>
<br />
This message is intended only for the individual named. It may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the named addressee you should in particular not disseminate, distribute, modify or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail, if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system.<br />
Without prejudice to any contractual agreements between you and us which shall prevail in any case, we take it as your authorization to correspond with you by e-mail if you send us messages by e-mail. However, we reserve the right not to execute orders and instructions transmitted by e-mail at any time and without further explanation.<br />
E-mail transmission may not be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete. Also processing of incoming e-mails cannot be guaranteed. All liability of Vontobel Holding Ltd. and any of its affiliates (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Vontobel Group") for any damages resulting from e-mail use is excluded. You are advised that urgent and time sensitive messages should not be sent by e-mail and if verification is required please request a printed version.</br>
Please note that all e-mail communications to and from the Vontobel Group are subject to electronic storage and review by Vontobel Group. Unless stated to the contrary and without prejudice to any contractual agreements between you and Vontobel Group which shall prevail in any case, e-mail-communication is for informational purposes only and is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument or as an official confirmation of any transaction.<br />
The legal basis for the processing of your personal data is the legitimate interest to develop a commercial relationship with you, as well as your consent to forward you commercial communications. You can exercise, at any time and under the terms established under current regulation, your rights. If you prefer not to receive any further communications, please contact your client relationship manager if you are a client of Vontobel Group or notify the sender.
Please note for an exact reference to the affected group entity the corporate e-mail signature.
For further information about data privacy at Vontobel Group please consult <a href="https://www.vontobel.com">www.vontobel.com</a>.<br />
</p>
</body>
</html>

[Jeff Smith]

I hate diving into licensing, but I will do a bit of wading from time to time


 

There’s not a direct correlation between SQL Server ‘databases’ and the multitenant option in Oracle. There’s quite a few technical advantages we have brought to the table, even if it is
ahem, late.

 

Also, have you noticed that you are now allowed 3 pluggable databases per CDB w/o hitting the multitenant option? This is also available in XE.

 

For all offerings, if you are not licensed for Oracle Multitenant, then the container database architecture is available in single-tenant mode, that is, with one user-created PDB, one user-created application root, and one user-created proxy PDB. (HYPERLINK "https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/18/dblic/Licensing-Information.html#GUID-0F9EB85D-4610-4EDF-89C2-4916A0E7AC87"Docs)

 

 

From: Noveljic Nenad <***@vontobel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 3:48 AM
To: ***@gmail.com; oracle-***@freelists.org
Subject: RE: Oracle licensing with disk replication

 

You’re right, looking at the $$$/core metric, SQL Server is definitely cheaper. Alas, there are some non-obvious, yet substantial total cost of ownership (TCO) contributors worth considering.

 

For example, Hyper-V won’t let you scale. I mean you might start hitting virtualization software bottlenecks before completely loading the CPUs. In the end, you might be needing more licenses than you planned for.

 

On the other hand, some expensive Oracle features are free of charge in SQL Server, like PDB, partitioning, BI etc. Also, SQL Server has a perfect integration with Active Directory which can save quite some time with user administration.

 

I’m not advocating one or the other, just trying to highlight some facts relevant for decision making.

 

Best regards,

 

Nenad

 

https://nenadnoveljic.com/blog/

 

 

From: HYPERLINK "mailto:oracle-l-***@freelists.org"oracle-l-***@freelists.org <HYPERLINK "mailto:oracle-l-***@freelists.org"oracle-l-***@freelists.org> On Behalf Of Mladen Gogala
Sent: Mittwoch, 14. November 2018 09:20
To: HYPERLINK "mailto:oracle-***@freelists.org"oracle-***@freelists.org
Subject: Re: Oracle licensing with disk replication

 

 

On 11/13/18 4:33 AM, HYPERLINK "mailto:***@comcast.net"***@comcast.net wrote:

Been there done that.

Oracle licensing has got to the point of actual number of copies of the software is what you must pay for, yes the same applies to SQL Server.

 

 

SQL Server is much cheaper than Oracle.

 

____________________________________________________

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Bitte denken Sie an die Umwelt, bevor Sie dieses E-Mail drucken.


Important Notice
This message is intended only for the individual named. It may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the named addressee you should in particular not disseminate, distribute, modify or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail, if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system.
Without prejudice to any contractual agreements between you and us which shall prevail in any case, we take it as your authorization to correspond with you by e-mail if you send us messages by e-mail. However, we reserve the right not to execute orders and instructions transmitted by e-mail at any time and without further explanation.
E-mail transmission may not be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete. Also processing of incoming e-mails cannot be guaranteed. All liability of Vontobel Holding Ltd. and any of its affiliates (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Vontobel Group") for any damages resulting from e-mail use is excluded. You are advised that urgent and time sensitive messages should not be sent by e-mail and if verification is required please request a printed version. Please note that all e-mail communications to and from the Vontobel Group are subject to electronic storage and review by Vontobel Group. Unless stated to the contrary and without prejudice to any contractual agreements between you and Vontobel Group which shall prevail in any case, e-mail-communication is for informational purposes only and is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument or as an official confirmation of any transaction.
The legal basis for the processing of your personal data is the legitimate interest to develop a commercial relationship with you, as well as your consent to forward you commercial communications. You can exercise, at any time and under the terms established under current regulation, your rights. If you prefer not to receive any further communications, please contact your client relationship manager if you are a client of Vontobel Group or notify the sender. Please note for an exact reference to the affected group entity the corporate e-mail signature. For further information about data privacy at Vontobel Group please consult HYPERLINK "https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.vontobel.com&d=DwMGaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=N2hWu5HFsaIjmMkjQbnlokJ7uinNZMgPVk8rqPT9esM&m=4ytCQWbBXvWj0_GdOvCFS3TSSqID_E0OdUhAoh2heWc&s=-oyhnhLyXChKadiqlNnMUoeQhFiU_I5ackh0mlcbX5k&e="www.vontobel.com.

[Iggy Fernandez]

It does not matter what the sales reps are telling you, it does not matter what various "policy" explanations say even if they are written by Oracle, it only matters what your contracts say. Therefore the question is: what do your contracts say? They likely say "processors where the software is installed and/or running."

Questions:

* If there is SAN to SAN replication but no processors have mounted the binaries, how many additional processors does the contract require you to license?
* How do you test your DR setup without additional licenses?
* When you fail over or switch over, is the software "installed and or/running" in two places simultaneously, even for a microsecond?

When answering the above questions, remember you must argue from the contracts only without reliance on any policy explanations since all policy explanations are explicitly non-contractual. A good article to read is http://houseofbrick.com/licensing-oracle-software-in-cloud-environments-an-article-for-the-nocoug/ even though it is ostensibly about licensing Oracle in the cloud.

The Northern California Oracle Users Group is a volunteer-run 501(c)(3) organization that has been serving the Oracle Database community of Northern California for more than thirty years by organizing four conferences a year and publishing a quarterly journal. Download the complete digital archive of the NoCOUG Journal using: “wget www.nocoug.org/Journal/NoCOUG_Journal_{2001..2018}{02..12..3}.pdf”<http://www.nocoug.org/Journal/NoCOUG_Journal_{2001..2018}{02..12..3}.pdf”>.


________________________________
From: oracle-l-***@freelists.org <oracle-l-***@freelists.org> on behalf of Hubler, Daniel <***@aurora.org>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 1:00 PM
To: 'oracle-***@freelists.org'
Subject: Oracle licensing with disk replication


We started work on a 2nd data center 2 years ago, and the equipment to make it functional is starting to come together.



One of the things that is happening is using Hitachi storage and replicating everything in the primary data center

to the secondary.



So we end up with a bunch of storage frames at the 2nd location containing exact copies of the disk at our primary location.



The folks who manage our contracts are telling us that Oracle corp. is being a pain,

and demanding compensation for these replicated copies of their software, which basically sit idle.



Personally, I can see how Oracle would want a piece of this, because we do derive benefit from it.



The contract folks are suggesting that ONLY Oracle corp. is behaving this way.

None of our other vendors.



Does this jive with other people’s experience?





Thanks for your input.