“The modules in question are used to help create managed services on top of Redis, namely RediSearch, Redis Graph, ReJSON, Redis-ML, and Rebloom. Licensed under Apache 2.0 modified with Commons Clause, these can still be freely used in any application, though they can’t be used in a commercial Redis-based offering. For that, you will have to call Redis Labs and work out a paid licensing arrangement.”
Original source: Redis Pulls Back on Open Source Licensing, Citing Stingy Cloud Services
“Oracle did announce during the earnings call that cloud revenue was $1.7B for the quarter, but failed to break that out between SaaS and the combined IaaS and PaaS, as was previously reported. Also, with BYOL, it is impossible to know if customers are using those licenses in the cloud or on-prem, thereby obfuscating their cloud performance, which is now the number one factor in determining Oracle’s success against its peers. Oracle is claiming customers are deploying BYOL licenses in the cloud immediately, or have plans to do so in the near future, but it is impossible to know for sure.”
Vendors switching from on-prem to public cloud is hella hard, often deadly.
Original source: Oracle Gets Cloudy: What’s Behind Their Change in Financial Reporting?
Should have done cloud earlier.
There’s another angle: when and how does a product manager call/predict a huge shift like traditional, on-premises software to “cloud”?
Original source: Why software giants are failing
“Licensing. Why’d it have to be licensing?”
Jon Hall, who always has good things to say about traditional IT Service Management butting up against Melinum IT, points out an all too common hassle with new ways of packaging and running IT: accounting for traditional licensing. Here, he points out a likely licensing counting problem with Docker-ized applications, e.g., with Oracle licensing when it comes to the recent, official Docker images with Oracle software in ’em:
But theres a serious gotcha here: as any Software Asset Manager could point out, these actions could have just cost the company a pretty staggering amount of money. How? By falling foul of Oracles notoriously complex licensing system.
Oracle licensing is bloody complex, and its entirely possible that a goalpost or two might have moved by the time you read this.
Nice think piece from Andrew Orlowski on tech companies becoming licensing companies:
All these companies are essentially licensing their brand and – in varying degrees – their technology know-how too. It’s a recognition that the global centre of gravity for manufacturing is now In China, which can also absorb the risk of moving into new markets. And in theory, it suits both sides. If Chinese industry can out-engineer and out-manufacture the West, it hasn’t yet show it can out market an Apple or a Sony.
Source: BlackBerry’s licensing strategy looks smart – and a lot like Nokia’s