Feature Request: concurrent licensing

This forum is now locked, since gold support is no longer offered.

Moderator: SourceGear

Locked
meastman
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:58 pm

Feature Request: concurrent licensing

Post by meastman » Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:41 pm

This seems like the type of thing that is probably in some FAQ or knowledge base, but I have been unable to find it in either of those locations or in this web board via searches.

I'd like to request a "concurrent" licensing model be added to Dragnet (and Vault for that matter), to allow many users to be created but only X number to be actively connected concurrently, where X is the number (or a formula based on the number) of purchased licenses. I suspect these types of licenses would have a different cost structure.

What's SourceGear's reason for NOT wanting to do this, assuming that this has already been hashed through somewhere?

-- michael

ericsink
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: SourceGear
Contact:

Re: Feature Request: concurrent licensing

Post by ericsink » Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:14 pm

meastman wrote:What's SourceGear's reason for NOT wanting to do this?
License enforcement code is a necessary evil, so we want to keep it as simple as possible.

Reason #1: If we added concurrent licensing as a second option, we would end up spending more time implementing, maintaining, documenting, testing and explaining our licensing. That time could be spent on features that help users get stuff done.

Reason #2: A concurrent license would cost a lot more than our current licenses do, but we're not sure exactly how much more. It would take a lot of time to figure out the right multiplication factor for pricing and then to figure out how that pricing interacts with volume discounting and resellers and support contracts and such. That time could be spent on features that help users get stuff done.

:-)
Eric Sink
Software Craftsman
SourceGear

meastman
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:58 pm

Post by meastman » Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:23 pm

Thank you for the concise answer. I figured it was something like that.

-- michael

Locked