RE: Counting users - rip-off

["Bale, Dan" <D.Bale@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: Counting users - rip-off

Larry, if the vendor groused about it and treated the solution as if they were doing the customer a favor, perhaps you should identify the vendor anyway so that other customers may have the same benefit. 

My guess is that this is not a vendor with big customer base.  I just cannot imagine that many AS/400 shops that wouldn't scream about counting every user profile in the system.

just my .02.

Dan Bale
(on the road)

-----Original Message-----
From:   Larry Bolhuis [SMTP:lbolhuis@arbsol.com]
Sent:   Thursday, August 02, 2001 4:27 PM
To:     MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject:        Re: Counting users - rip-off

The vendor in question (the potential rip-off) has finally admitted that
the counting of OS/400 users not enrolled in their software will not
count against their licensed user count.  They were not particularly
happy about losing this 'potential revenue' but had to admit it was
unreasonable to expect payment for them.

 - Larry

John Earl wrote:
>
> > The norm is purchasing licenses  for users that use the software,
> not all
> > possible users on the system. Think of group profiles which cannot
> even
> > signon. Should you pay for a license for that "user"?
>
> Or IBM profiles that must be on the system.  Or profiles that the
> Vendor software in question creates (they charge by profile and then
> create additional profiles?   Pretty neat trick!).
>
> I'm all for reducing the number of unneeded profiles on a system, but
> this seems a bit heavy handed on the vendor's part.
>
> jte