October 25, 2016 at 8:30 pm
We purchased SQL Server 2008 Enterprise Edition around 5 years ago, and have paid Software Assurance fees ever since with the promise that we would have access to software upgrades at no cost as they became available. The SQL Server 2008 provided us the right to use the product in a failover role on a second computer. We are now being told that with SQL 2016 the right to use the product in a failover role is no longer part of our license, but rather a benefit of Software Assurance.
We have a real problem with this licensing change. We had the option before of not continuing with SA if it didn't serve our purposes. Now, it would appear we have no choice but to continue. A right we purchased was taken away from us and reassigned to Software Assurance, and in effect now has to be rented in perpetuity. Given the fundamental need of a failover facility in a database manager, it would be reasonable to assume that any software upgrade would maintain this feature, that if we had license rights to use a second server in a failover role with our original purchase, and we purchased a product (Software Assurance) that provided the no-cost upgrade path, that that right to such a basic and fundamental feature as failover would not be abridged.
I'd be curious to know how Microsoft rationalizes this kind of action, because by all appearances, this is patently unfair and unreasonable, and probably even illegal. I'm hoping Microsoft comes to their senses, and backs off on this change, but if not, am prepared to challenge the issue in court. I would love to hear responses from anyone that is equally bothered by this.
October 26, 2016 at 10:21 am
Does that mean you are unhappy with the licensing changes around core licensing too?
You could of course stay on sql server 2008
Like any organisation as products evolve, features and licencing change.
I get where you're coming from but its evolution of the product not a stab at users like us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
October 26, 2016 at 10:58 am
I'm perfectly comfortable with the per-core licensing. When they switched to the per-core licensing, they awarded per-core licenses according to how many cores were on your existing server. In our case, with SQL 2008, we were licensed for two processors. Each processor had six cores, so we were awarded 12 core licenses.
Nor am I uncomfortable with a benefit of SA being the right to use a second server as the failover server, or Microsoft marketing SQL 2016 without the failover option. Microsoft has a right to do that.
What I question is their right to sell us an SQL 2008 license, a product that had the failover option without the requirement for SA, and then sell us SA, a product that was touted as one that would provide us upgrades, and then come out and tell us that the "upgraded" license no longer has the failover option. Rather, it's associated now with SA, so that in effect you need to buy it again.
This has all the markings of a shell game. As I said, it would be interesting to hear their justification for this kind of policy. I understand their motivation -- to commit their base into an ongoing revenue stream --but it hardly justifies what's taken place.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply