3 ms·

The problem with these audits is that the exact licensing conditions can be vague, or the audit points to something that is in compliance, but might not be (e.g

The problem with these audits is that the exact licensing conditions can be vague, or the audit points to something that is in compliance, but might not be (e.g. you're licensed for 8 cores, but your replacement servers have 12 cores, you still only need the 8 cores so you disable 4 cores in the bios ... well, they will say, for all we know you only disabled those cores when we came to do the audit ... so now you owe us the money for 4 extra cores at full list price, going back 18 months).

davidmr 7y ago
The IBM licenses are so obtuse that it can only be intentional. This may be outdated, but they used to use these stupid “processor units” that had some loose correlation to CPU performance. If a perfectly well-intentioned systems person moved licensed software to some new server that had half the cores, but was on a newer generation CPU, and didn’t think to ask the lawyers about it, you could get tagged for huge bucks. I will never buy IBM software ever again if I can go to any reasonable length to avoid it. RHATs licensing seems not to be moving to the IBM model yet, but I’m frightened.
- NullPrefix 7y ago
  > “processor units” Graphical processor(ing?) unit. How many (cuda) cores are we talking about? /s
- abraae 7y ago
  > The IBM licenses are so obtuse that it can only be intentional. This is the company who popularised "This page intentionally left blank". Obtuseness is very much part of their toolkit.
  - dodobirdlord 7y ago
    > This is the company who popularised "This page intentionally left blank". That was an objectively good move though.