Re: RE: stdby and Oracle licensing

Carel-Jan,

   That is a very good post. I would like to mention one thing though -- when negotiating "special" licensing arrangements (e.g., standby database servers at 10% of the normal cost), it is probably not good enough to "have it in writing, signed by an authorised sales rep.", although that *might* be good enough to satisfy a license audit.

   To be truly safe, your "special" licensing arrangements must be executed as a formal ammendment to the OLSA, and need to be signed by an authorised officer of Oracle Corp. (I.e., somebody authorised to offer/accept contracts on the part of Oracle Corp.) In my mind, that probably means a V.P. or better...

   Without formally "ammending" the OLSA, the "Entire Agreement" clause makes any other documents you might have (even if signed in blood) null and void. Of course, that doesn't mean that Oracle might not *choose* to honour them, just that they're not *compelled* to. ;-)

   I know, that's sort of "splitting hairs", but if you're gonna do it, you ought to do it right...

• Original Message ----- From: Carel-Jan Engel <cjpengel.dbalert_at_xs4all.nl> Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 3:48 pm Subject: RE: stdby and Oracle licensing

> Mark refers to my post of June 21/25 last year:
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/06-2005/msg00954.html
>
> Best regards,
>
> Carel-Jan Engel
>
> ===
> If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. (Derek Bok)
> ===
>
> On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 14:33 -0800, David wrote:
>
> > I'm referring to the standby piece specifically. I'm clear on
> failover> and don't think that has changed.
> > Has the standby agreement changed or have I just been clueless
> this long.
> > I have even posed thi to ORacle sales last year and was told:
> "Standby is
> > covered under EE and has no additional cost"
> >
> > Now, it costs additional EE licenses under the same model to
> cover both
> > servers...
> > Did'nt always used to be like that I'm quite sure.
>
>
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l