34 response s so far ↓

• 1 Charlie Arehart // Oct 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM

  Hey Terry, thanks for the news. I realize it's exciting times as you write this early at Max in LA today, but to be clear for posterity ... :-)
  
  You say "this means that you can install additional copies of your production server in Standard or Enterprise (which ever license you bought) to take one of these roles."
  
  Just to be clear, do you mean "you can install additional copies of your production license key"?
  
  And some will surely ask: I assume this means one can install that license key onto any other physical or virtual server, as long as the use of CF on that server is designated solely for testing or development purposes, right?

• 2 Sami Hoda // Oct 5, 2009 at 1:28 PM

  Charlie,
  
  Good questions!

• 3 tpryan // Oct 5, 2009 at 2:10 PM

  @Charlie, yep.

• 4 Charlie Arehart // Oct 5, 2009 at 2:14 PM

  Great. Thanks. Really sweet news, and another great reason for folks to update to CF9.

• 5 David Boyer // Oct 6, 2009 at 4:25 AM

  @Terry,
  
  Thanks for clearing this up a bit. It's fantastic news and will certainly make it easier to get things upgraded. :)

• 6 Michael Long // Oct 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM

  Thanks. Now do you want to take a stab at "cloud computing"? Does that cover virtualization of multiple instances on single or several machines?

• 7 Charlie Arehart // Oct 6, 2009 at 12:58 PM

  Sorry to have to muddy the waters, but this is all very important to many, so some other things seem worth clarifying.
  
  On closer examination of the EULA (http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/pdfs/adobe_coldFusion_combined_20090811_0930.pdf), it appears that we can't really install "copies" of the production license key, meaning onto multiple servers, if we've purchased only one for production. It seems we can only use the license key on as many dev/test/staging servers as we have purchased production keys:
  
  "the total number of Computers used to operate the Development Software [can] not exceed the licensed number of Servers"
  
  Now, that's not a real tragedy. The offer to do even one per license is a certainly a step up for many. But people should be aware of this issue. Can you confirm that I'm reading this right, Terry?
  
  Also, in case folks wondered if there was any difference between where the prod server was installed and where these dev/test/staging servers could be installed, it seems that the dev/test/staging server must be on the same network as the licensed servers, as it says we can only "install the Development Software on Servers connected to Licensee’s Internal Network".
  
  Of course, "connected to licensee's internal network" is rather vague (and to be clear, IANAL: I am not a lawyer.) I can see some wanting to have the prod server license on a managed host box while the test/staging use would be done on a server internal to the company. That would not seem supported.
  
  Before we conclude that I'm reading things right, though, some may be surprised to see the same paragraph indicating that we cannot "(ii) access the Development Software from more than a single IP address at any given time". I can understand that for the free Dev edition but that would seem counter to a dev/test/staging server where production load may be replicated for testing purposes, and that may come from a scattered set of servers sending the load, or just scattered testers running at once.
  
  I'm wondering if perhaps these last two points really apply just to the free developer edition (though even that is not technically limited to just one IP address). I think the problem is that someone tried to cover both the free Dev edition and these "Production Software licenses...[used] as Development Software" in the singel section 3.2.
  
  Can you get clarification on these things, Terry?
  
  I do hope these questions and their answers only help people. I was torn, as surely some would say "well why not let it be vague? why press for an answer, because if Adobe answers it takes away any wiggle room?". But there are people whose companies really want to do things by the book, and this news is compelling.
  
  It would just be unfortunate if they were left with a misinterpretation based on attempts here to keep things concise. Certainly, it's great that Terry has pointed it out, and those who want to play fast and loose can just deny they ever saw this clarification. :-) But I think your lawyers (or higher ups you report to) will want these clarifications. More than that, perhaps the wording of that section 3.2 might be reconsidered to split out the two "Dev" uses, if they really are different. Or someone may point out that I've simply read things wrong.

• 8 Andy Lynch // Oct 6, 2009 at 2:07 PM

  Just subscribing to thread.

• 9 Glenn // Oct 6, 2009 at 4:04 PM

  Subscribing

• 10 Trond Bendiktsen // Oct 8, 2009 at 6:09 AM

  subscribing

• 11 Randy Johnson // Oct 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM

  Subscribing

• 12 Aaron Neff // Oct 8, 2009 at 7:20 PM

  subscribing

• 13 Brian Meloche // Oct 9, 2009 at 4:40 AM

  Charlie, your attention to detail is unmatched. Any answers for us?

• 14 Adam Tuttle // Oct 9, 2009 at 11:07 AM

  (IDNWFA: I Do Not Work For Adobe) - BUT...
  
  Perhaps Charlie just got a little confused in all the legal mumbo-jumbo? When I read "connected to licensee's internal network" - I take it to mean that "the licensee" is the company or individual who owns the license, not the company who owns, operates, or otherwise has possession of the production server. So, if that's correct, then having your production server(s) managed and your development server(s) in-house would be acceptable. What wouldn't seem to be permitted would be to have your development/staging server(s) managed externally.
  
  <$/0.02>

• 15 Aaron Longnion // Oct 9, 2009 at 11:08 AM

  subscribing

• 16 Seth Bienek // Oct 9, 2009 at 11:27 AM

  subscribing

• 17 tpryan // Oct 9, 2009 at 11:41 AM

  So I'm not a lawyer. So I have only so much say here. But I think some of this language in intended to address issues surrounding hosting. Someone asked at one of the Unconference sessions that is they lease a VPN from a provider with a standalone license does that count towards them having a development/testing box. This language seems to properly enforce the right answer "No."

• 18 Charlie Arehart // Oct 9, 2009 at 3:40 PM

  Fair enough, but a couple questions still stand.
  
  @Adam T. I'll admit I may *have* been a little confused in my question of where the dev/staging license was allowed. It wasn't that I wondered if the "owner of the server" was the licensee, but rather I was just thinking that where the production license was installed might become the "internal network" in this verbiage. I see now that I missed the term being defined in the EULA definitions section. That point is now clear. Still, I hope that drawing out the point about how this test/staging server must be on the "internal network" may help someone.
  
  @Terry, as for your reply about VPN access, I see now that that too is covered in the definition section for "internal network". I hadn't asked about it, but I sense that you're offering it in response to my question about what IP addresses can access this dev/test/staging server. While the definition section does say that's allowed, it still doesn't address the point I made about a later section that seems to counter it.
  
  Let me repeat and condense that, as well as the first question I raised in my last comment:
  
  - do I have it correct that this clause, "(ii) access the Development Software from more than a single IP address at any given time", does apply to this dev/test/staging servers using the production license key? It would seem it should not, and should apply only to the free Dev edition (in which case it's still more than just "a single" IP address it allows), but that's not the way it's worded if you read the section. This seems an important point.
  
  - do I have it correct that a single purchase of a production license allows only a single use of that license on one other server for dev or test or staging? So that if one wants, say, test and staging, they will still need to buy another license for the 2nd of those two?
  
  Is it appropriate for us to seek answers to these here? You say you're not a lawyer, and we appreciate that of course, but I think folks here might hope that we could get clarifications from someone at Adobe on these points. (And that's why I asked here, rather than start my own blog entry, so I apologize for the long comments.)
  
  If you don't think it's appropriate for these points to be addressed here, is there a better place we should be asking? I'll say that with so many subscribing to hear the answers, I hope no one would tell us we should each ask directly ourselves.
  
  As always, just trying to help (thanks for recognizing that, Brian).

• 19 tpryan // Oct 9, 2009 at 5:18 PM

  The IP restriction does indeed refer to the "Development Edition" and not a "standard or enterprise license installed as a shared development box."
  
  The purchase of a production license should enable as many backend systems that you want, as long as they are not full production, or provide service to full production machines. (can't have multiple backend workhorses doing work for production servers.) The EULA might be read the other way, but our intention was what I said.
  
  In anycase, we don't have Adobe police. The rules here are meant to enable you to have a proper environment, that is the spirit of those rules. We're not going to hunt people down.

• 20 Charlie Arehart // Oct 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM

  Awesome, thanks so much for the clarifications, Terry. We'll all sleep better, and indeed feel a lot better, about taking advantage of this great improvement in the licensing. Thanks for your patience with me.

• 21 JF // Nov 13, 2009 at 11:50 AM

  subscribing

• 22 Paul Ihrig // Nov 19, 2009 at 9:07 AM

  sub

• 23 Wiliam // Nov 21, 2009 at 2:31 PM

  @tpryan
  
  The "we're not gonna hunt you down" is helpful, except that Adobe, Apple, Msoft and all those are not in the business of hunting people down. The BSA is.
  
  Can Adobe PLEASE make sure that the BSA is aware of this license change and to expect companies to have multiple physical servers installed for devlopment, when it will appear that they are licensed for less.
  
  Having been through a recent BSA audit, these guys will not interact with the companies they represent if you have licensing questions. They are heavy handed, come down like a police force with threatening action right off the bat and do not communicate their intention in any way.
  
  What happened with me was an employee who was a secretary, whose husband has an IT consulting business recently was terminated, we also terminated the consulting company from any future work, we are certain that this person reported to the BSA that we had unlicensed software rampant in the organization, which we do not, we are very careful about controlling software and licensing. Needless to say the BSA sent letters demanding a full software audit with all supporting documentation or they would take legal action on behalf of their members. We ended up ok and had no issues but it was big headache. One issue was reporting to them instances where we had the same license for software installed on two machines, same persons machine, one desktop, one laptop, allowed by the written EULA and they tried to tell us it was not.
  
  If adobe doesn't update the BSA with the intent of this license change it could cause issues for people that may face a future BSA audit.

• 24 Nikos // Dec 19, 2009 at 5:56 AM

  So if I have 2 internal servers can how do I get the dev one to run with no ip restriction, if I by CF9?

• 25 resume // Jan 4, 2010 at 7:25 AM

  you know i always wondered how are some people are so patient with explaining things:)
  thank you

• 26 Acompanhantes // Mar 18, 2010 at 9:25 PM

  The purchase of a production license should enable as many backend systems that you want, as long as they are not full production, or provide service to full production machines. (can't have multiple backend workhorses doing work for production servers.) The EULA might be read the other way, but our intention was what I said.
  
  Great post!!

• 27 Desentupidora // Mar 18, 2010 at 9:25 PM

  So I have only so much say here. But I think some of this language in intended to address issues surrounding hosting. Someone asked at one of the Unconference sessions that is they lease a VPN from a provider with a standalone license does that count towards them having a development/testing box.
  
  Thanks!!

• 28 Relogio de Ponto // Mar 18, 2010 at 9:26 PM

  Really sweet news, and another great reason for folks to update to CF9.
  Thanks.

• 29 mac file recovery // Mar 29, 2010 at 11:33 AM

  Thanks for putting this up. Cheers!

• 30 2 Day Diet Japan Lingzhi // May 13, 2010 at 9:58 PM

  thanks. what you said is useful, so i eant to leave my footprint here...

• 31 Michael R // Jul 14, 2010 at 3:05 AM

  Thanks for the post. Is there any way to activate the license key on the Dev server without reinstalling? i.e. Through CF administrator
  
  And just so we are clear...
  
  I have a production system running on a server on another network at another location that has CF9 installed using our single license key.
  
  I am still allowed to use that license key for our dev server at our office because at least 5 people need to access it for development purposes. Right?

• 32 georgio erica // Jul 26, 2010 at 7:05 AM

  Added some further point to this process...
  
  I have a system, running on a server at another location that has vertical streams installed using our single license key installer.
  Would it be possible to add this key installer to multiple sites?
  
  It says so here:
  "The purchase of a production license should enable as many backend systems that you want, as long as they are not full production, or provide service to full production machines. (can't have multiple backend workhorses doing work for production servers.) The EULA might be read the other way, but our intention was what I said."
  
  ** giorgio **

• 33 tava tea // Aug 11, 2010 at 2:06 AM

  Before we conclude that I'm reading things right, though, some may be surprised to see the same paragraph indicating that we cannot "(ii) access the Development Software from more than a single IP address at any given time". I can understand that for the free Dev edition but that would seem counter to a dev/test/staging server where production load may be replicated for testing purposes, and that may come from a scattered set of servers sending the load, or just scattered testers running at once.

• 34 tpryan // Aug 11, 2010 at 10:06 AM

  The limited IP restriction is only for the developer copy.

Leave a Comment