We have the following problem.

We want to create the Web-application. Web-users view the reports and enter some information. In local staff 2 programmers and 3 people of support stuff (for input of the information and database management). We plan to buy OI WORKS for the chief programmer, OI Workgroups Development Ready Server Deployment 1 User for the 2nd programmer, OI Server Deployment 3 User for support stuff and OI Web Deployment Pack for Web-users. It's all right? Whether we shall overpay? or we need somthing else?

–

WBR DWS dws@mail.ru

It is better to answer by direct e-mail

You are *really* close:

Situation:

Want to create the Web-application.

Local staff of 2 programmers

3 people for input of the information

What you need:

2 copies of OI Works for the programmers

1 OpenInsight 3 user SDP (for the runtime users)

1 Web Deployment Pack for Web-users

Each of your developers would obtain a Works program instead of the Development Ready SDP.

Kurt

Kurt,

Just out of curiosity, why can't they purchase just one Works and one DRSDP? Maybe they only care if one programmer has technical support and website access? After all, isn't the DRSDP meant to be a low-end development license (so to speak)?

Thanks,

dbakke@srpcs.com

SRP Computer Solutions

Hi Don,

This is not a case of finding the least expensive product for the job, but rather a case of choosing the correct product for the situation as described in the license agreement. According to the license agreement a DRSDP is a deployment product, intended for use by end-users of an application to allow them to do such things as modifiy, extend, maintain, or enhance an existing application. Developers are licensed by development products, which are available through the Works program. So if there are going to be two developers, they should purchase two Works subscriptions.

Gary

Gary,

I'm confused, as I'm sure are most of us. While we all want to honour Revelation's licensing, the nuances are subtle and lead to this sort of outcome. I understand Revelation's position that the initial situation warrents a full developer license for the second developer. What I don't understand is where Works stops and a development ready license begins. What functionality or abilities does Works confer on the licensee besides access to the Works area and special Works only software and technical articles?

I'm having trouble finding the line that separates a power-end user that wants to make some changes to an application and a junior developer who, well, just needs to make some changes to an application.

There doesn't seem to be a difference other than the intent of the licensee. If the licensee's main task is modification of the product, then Revelation seems to insist on a Works subscription. However, if the licensee just needs to make periodic changes then a development license is all that is required.

Based on this assumption, it seems that Revelation is not just licensing OpenInsight functionality, but intent. Obviously, this can not be the case, so there truly does have to be a difference between a development system and a Works subscription provided development system.

Could you please explain the differences in functionality between the two products?

Thanks.

akaplan@sprezzatura.com

Sprezzatura Group

World leaders in all things RevSoft

Gary,

In addition to Aaron's well written response, I was curious if the intent is applicable to DWS since it appears that this is an in-house application. That is, it appears that the "end-users" are in fact the same company doing the programming (albeit different people within the company.)

So Aaron's concern about the blurred lines between power users and junior programmer's is all the more relevant here.

Thanks,

dbakke@srpcs.com

SRP Computer Solutions

…Owners of Works Subscriptions for every SRP developer…

Aaron,

A product is made up of software and a license to use the software. Revelation has identified two distinct groups of users of OpenInsight products: developers (junior or not) and end-users (power or not).

Developers are people that will create and upgrade applications for use by a user or group of users, therefore they must purchase a development product(license and software). And as you already mentioned, people who purchase a development license are enrolled in the Works program, and get those additional benefits.

End-users use an application that was built for their use and must purchase the appropriate deployment product (license and software). The DRSDP is a deployment product that allows an end-user or end-users to maintain, enhance, or customize the application that was built for them by a developer or team of developers. In order to provide this functionality, users have access to all the tools in OpenInsight.

Any further discussion on this thread should be addressed in the Licensing and Deployment section of the on-line discussion.

Gary

Don,

In this specific case DWS states they have two programmers, so Kurt recommends two Works subscriptions. They don't indicate that one is a developer and the other is an end-user that will be extending or modifying a deployed application (DRSDP license would suffice in this case). If in fact their is only one programmer (developer) then they would only need one Works subscription. Once that one developer creates their application and goes to deploy the application, they would have to determine what the end-users require, and choose the appropriate deployment product: Runtime SDP, Reporter SDP, or DRSDP.

Any further discussion on this subject should continue on the Licensing and Deployment discussion board.

Gary

Hi to everyone … haven't posted in a long time but …

Obviously, RS can license any way they want to, and this is not in any way a complaint aboute how they license. If you don't like their policies you don't have to use or buy their products. But this kind of discussion makes me very happy that very little of my work is RS related any more. It also confirms my decision to work with open source products as much as possible. I have no problem paying for support and I think the works program is worth the cost just for the support aspect, but I just hate the endless debate on exactly what kind of license you have to have.

Just to clarify…

I was not complaining about the license. I was just hoping to get Revelation's outlook on a situation which seemed somewhat vague. I think Gary's provided a good response.

dbakke@srpcs.com

SRP Computer Solutions

RTI ships two different development licenses and I've seen people get burned on not knowing the differences. Clearly there must be differences so we asked Revelation to clarify.

I find that being allowed to make these sorts of questions and getting reasoned, polite responses is a reason to stay with Revelation, not a reason to leave. Some companies would simply tell us to put up or shut up, but RTI makes an attempt to answer what they see as reasonable, rational questions.

It makes sense that an advanced development tool would have complicated licensing. NT servers have multiple licesning schemes, may products ship in a personal, professional, developer, enterprise and who know how many other editions. RTI is doing similar things, but using different names. One cannot begrudge them for this.

One can ask what the differences in the product are, as we did.

One could expect an explanation of the difference, which they provided, along with the offer for further clarification if required.

I fail to see why any of this should be considered a problem.

akaplan@sprezzatura.com

Sprezzatura Group

[/i]World leaders in all things RevSoft[/i]

View this thread on the forum...