Conference vaxaxp::vmsnotes

   You'll need to find out what's going on inside the application's
   license management checks, as a cut-and-paste operation alone does
   not (normally) trigger a LMF license check.

   The number of times (the "activity" count) the application is
   invoked _is_ considered to be the number of users.  There are
   user-based licenses, as well, but these are handled differently.

   Note that the vendor policy module is a possible option here, as
   it may be possible for the vendor to create a "unique" license
   policy for this purpose.  (The DIGITAL "activity" license policy
   does not attempt to "coalesce" parallel activations by multiple
   processes logged in under the same username.)

    Steve
    
    Thanks for the quick reply. I guess that at the partner site they have 
    implemented using "activity" count. What should he do now to make this
    as user-based license. That is how can he create a "unique" license
    policy in this case using the "vendor policy module"
    
    The user requirement is that, using his VMS account needs
    to activate the application more than once. If you are looking for some
    specific info, I can get it from the partner.
    
    Thanks
    
     

LMF can do what you want...  Digital Business practices won't let it.

  I heristate to question Eric's opinion on this, but I would have thought
  a personal use PAK would suit this situation exactly. All the customer
  needs is a PAK with the following characteristics:

  Units       = 100 * number of users
  Activity    = CONSTANT=100
  Key options = RESERVE_UNITS

  The PAK needs to have a RESERVE list naming each of the users. That will
  limit the product to usage by the named users, but each user will have
  unlimited use.

  In practice it should be possible to determine a number for an activity
  PAK which will achieve the same effect. For example, for 15 users, the
  usage profile may indicate a 25 use activity PAK will suffice.

						John Gillings, Sydney CSC

    re .4
    
    I take it that LMF does not cross check the allowed number of users
    against the number of users in the reserve list. I thought it did. The
    reason I say that is because my understanding of the original
    requirement is that there is no restriction on who can use the product,
    only a restriction on the number of concurrent humans (as opposed to
    processes) that can use it.
    
    I don't believe that LMF can do this out of the box today.
    
    A small amount of coding could make a reasonable stab at implementing
    what the customer wants. I don't think it would be easy to make it
    watertight.
    
    re .0

    I believe that FLEXLM is available for VMS.

>    reason I say that is because my understanding of the original
>    requirement is that there is no restriction on who can use the product,
>    only a restriction on the number of concurrent humans (as opposed to
>    processes) that can use it.
>    
>    I don't believe that LMF can do this out of the box today.

LMF V1.2 (VMS 7.1) can!  If anyone running 7.1 wants to try it out, just name
the product and I'll get you a temporary User license.  NO PRODUCT CODING
CHANGES ARE REQUIRED!

Eric

>LMF V1.2 (VMS 7.1) can!  If anyone running 7.1 wants to try it out, just name
>the product and I'll get you a temporary User license.  NO PRODUCT CODING
>CHANGES ARE REQUIRED!

How about all non-royalty products, temporary licence expiring in say 1500 days
- just so I can do some Y2K testing :-)

Antonio

>How about all non-royalty products, temporary licence expiring in say 1500 days
>- just so I can do some Y2K testing :-)
>
>Antonio

I'll print them up and mail them to you, what's your mail stop?  %^)

    > I'll print them up and mail them to you, what's your mail stop?  %^)
    
    I presume you're joking ... we don't have 300 products left do we :-)
    
    You can mail the electronic output to MARVIN::CARLINI; the
    trans-Atlantic postage for 300 bits of paper would severely impact Q4.
    
    Make the expiration date somewhere in August 2060: I forgot the Unix
    death date in 2038 and the Alpha transition year somewhere in the late
    2050s, and I'd rather not have to come pestering you again so we might
    as well get it right the first time!

re .6
    
>LMF V1.2 (VMS 7.1) can!
    
    I know and I knew that when I wrote what I wrote. I'm sure that licence
    you are offerring to supply cannot be given to the customer and in any
    case the customer couldn't generate PAKs for their customers.
    
    The effect to the customer is what I wrote. Digital doesn't have it now.

>    The effect to the customer is what I wrote. Digital doesn't have it now.

Correct.  Allow me to rephrase:  LMF has it now.