New licensing rule has a hidden cost

matttrax

They are definitely new features, but I don't know that I would say functionality. I consider functionality things like Sales Tax, Resource Management, etc. Features are as you described, 3-Tier, RTC, etc. But that's just a debate over words.

Personally, I think MS has done a great job. There's only so much you can build that applies to the majority of businesses. That's what add-ons are for.

saml26

Ok, I have read many articles and web pages over the last few days, including the FAQ document and I still do not have a concrete answer. Basically the FAQ document says "you need a DCO for anything and everything", whic surely cannot be the case.

Here is my scenario.
Using the NAV SQL server database, we are extracting data and using it to build our own, optimized OLAP cube (including customizations). Then with this nelwy created OLAP cube we have BI users using a front end to access the cube. SQL server licences are of course bundled in.

Question: Do I need to have each BI user accessing our own OLAP cube (which extracted data from NAV SQL databse via our own ETL process) as a DCO licenced named user?

kine

In the Agreement I have found that you need to license each direct and indirect access to the "system database" (system database means the NAV database). But question is, where is the limit where the DB is still system DB and where it is something other (e.g. replicated tables from the database). Of course our view will be different from MS view.

DenSter

It just wouldn't make any sense to have to get a NAV license to be able to access an external OLAP database, I don't believe for a second that is the case. You might be able to make a case to have to license the process that extracts and transforms the data from the NAV database (which I also think is highly suspicious because all you're doing is access a SQL Server database using SQL Server tools, has nothing to do with any NAV process), but from there I really don't think anyone can make a case for having to purchase a NAV license.

matttrax

DenSter wrote:

It just wouldn't make any sense to have to get a NAV license to be able to access an external OLAP database

I completely agree, but the licensing policy still states

If a user has a connection of any sort to the Microsoft Dynamics NAV business logic or data, either directly in the application or the database or indirectly via a server (or any other setup), then he has access and must be licensed for use of Microsoft Dynamics NAV.

Examples of this can be scenarios enabling: inputting of data (e.g. from employees or customers), puling or automatic publishing of reports, displaying product info or availability, EDI connections, web shops, etc. Licensing options are DCO for internal users, DCO for external users that can be named and External Connector when there are either many external users or the external users cannot be named.

saml26 wrote:

Question: Do I need to have each BI user accessing our own OLAP cube (which extracted data from NAV SQL databse via our own ETL process) as a DCO licenced named user?

We're in the same boat and haven't gotten the same answer from anyone, partner, Microsoft, partnerSource. As a result all we can do is go by the exact wording of the agreement.

ara3n

The FAQ states that you'll need a CDO for OLAP cubes

DenSter

ara3n wrote:

The FAQ states that you'll need a CDO for OLAP cubes

To create one maybe, because you have to access the NAV database (even though I think this is highly suspicious when you use SQL Server BI tools on your SQL Server database, since it has already been licensed, I doubt that it is legal to force double licensing for the same thing). Having to purchasae a NAV license to access an OLAP cube in a separate database is like having to purchase a license to read the piece of paper that you just printed a report on. It makes no sense at all.

ara3n

Yes, I agree it doesn't make sense, and I don't know much about licensing.
I hope MS clear this up. I thought the FAQ was the reason for this.

bbrown

If this is true, it will greatly increase the cost of running BI tools like PrecisionPoint.

ara3n

bbrown wrote:

If this is true, it will greatly increase the cost of running BI tools like PrecisionPoint.

It actually will increase the cost of any integration with NAV if employees are the users.
And the idea that concurrent users do not CDO doesn't make sense, since CDO is named users.
It looks like you'll need double NAV license for the users if they access the data through a different method?

bbrown

ara3n wrote:

bbrown wrote:

If this is true, it will greatly increase the cost of running BI tools like PrecisionPoint.

It actually will increase the cost of any integration with NAV

That's true. My point was in reference to people that are already using these tools. Will they incur additional licensing cost when they upgrade NAV? I don't see customer reacting very well.

generic

I saw Michaellee post this here

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=34030&p=165243#p165243

There are a couple of scenarios that are excluded from DCO Licensing. These are:

· Running a SQL Reporting Services report that does not update data – this is covered under your SQL Server CAL

· Accessing data from a SQL Analysis Services database, ensuring this does not update data back into the NAV database – this is covered under your SQL Server CAL

· Accessing data through a Dynamics Mobile application – this is covered under the Dynamics Mobile license

· Dumping data directly from the NAV client into Excel/Word etc.



Any other scenario in which a third party application (scanners, external applications, Excel, Word etc) accesses live NAV data, either by reading data or updating data requires a DCO license.



The External Connector only covers access for users who are not employees of the organisation (e.g., to ensure licensing compliance for e-commerce solutions or providing access to customers and suppliers to live data feeds)"


Our questions and answers on DCO licensing:

1. Are DCO licenses covered under a volume agreement?

a. DCO Licenses are not covered under a Volume Agreement as Volume Agreements cover Microsoft Classic licensing only

2. Do users licensed under the NAV Concurrent User License require a DCO license to access NAV data outside of the client (for example, NAV client users accessing an external .NET application consuming a web service from Dynamics NAV)

a. Yes, they will need a DCO license

3. If a customer purchases DCO-MOSS licenses, can the MOSS element of the license be allocated to different users

a. No, the DCO named users must be the same as the named MOSS users

4. If a customer purchases a DCO-WSS license, can they upgrade to the DCO-MOSS license at a later stage

a. Yes, they need to pay the difference between the DCO-WSS and DCO-MOSS license cost

5. If potentially all 150 warehouse users could be accessing Dynamics NAV data through a handheld device, however only a small amount will be working with it at any one time, how many DCO licenses will be required?

a. 150 DCO licenses will be required.

This is bad news. Integrations are too expensive. This licensing will kill new sales. And it would be unethical if sales people don't tell the client about this change.

jlandeen

I’ve recently dug into a lot of the material online, read the FAQ’s and had a few discussions with Microsoft resources on this topic. I feel there is a HUGE disconnect between global corporate licensing policy and the Dynamics channel partners – right now it’s the AX/NAV (this probably hurts NAV more) channel, but GP/SL may not be far behind. I’ve tried to collect everything up on some of the various different methods/approaches and their problems in a document...please feel free to email me if you would like a copy.

Some of the things I’ve learned:

1) This new licensing model is driven from the top of Microsoft on a Global Level and wasn’t done with adequate involvement of the NAV Channel 2) It was designed so that NAV/AX pricing fits with how the larger Apps are priced & positioned (SAP, Oracle). This works for bigger AX and NAV deals but fails to adequately consider a lot of the smaller companies that are better served by NAV, GP or SL 3) There should be no difference in pitching GP,SL or NAV to a customer – if you are a NAV Partner you are at a disadvantage when competing against GP because DCO licensing of modules and other work is not consistent with comparable models in GP 4) GP will probably have similar licensing model when it switches to version 11 (hopefully that channel will be just as upset as the NAV Channel) 5) TELL MICROSOFT

I think one of the biggest take aways that I’ve gotten out of this exercise is that Microsoft needs to hear from Customers and Partners a like that this licensing model, as it currently stands, does not work. Pick up the phone, write an email, yell at whomever you have to make yourself heard and get this message to them. I believe they are starting to wake up to this problem here and they are responding to this – but it’s on an individual interaction basis.

generic

Thank you Jeff.

The sad part is that most Solution Centers themselves are not informed and this is ignored because there is no technical enforcement.

Most NAV people are also not technical enough to know the difference.

jlandeen

Yeah I've always wondered about how MS was planning on enforcing this new licensing model...or if they've just implemented it so that those solution centres that deal with the bigger deals can charge it and let the smaller NSC's just keep going as ususal.

If MS doesn't actually have an enforcement mechanism or do anything to follow up on this than really what is the point?

David_Singleton

jlandeen wrote:

Yeah I've always wondered about how MS was planning on enforcing this new licensing model...or if they've just implemented it so that those solution centres that deal with the bigger deals can charge it and let the smaller NSC's just keep going as ususal.

If MS doesn't actually have an enforcement mechanism or do anything to follow up on this than really what is the point?

Well my local 24 hour store doesn't have a mechanism to prevent me robbing them at gun point either. There are only two reasons that they don't get robbed every night, 1/ people are basically honest or 2/ the don't want to go to jail.

I think we have to ignore the fact that for years we are used to Navision it self telling us when we we about to break our license agreement (you do not have permission or you have reached the max number of users). The Microsoft world is about you signing an agreement and then abiding by the terms of the agreement.

Microsoft need to educate all partners and customers about these changes. When they do that they will have 1.3 million users on the phone complaining and then they will re think the policy.

This is much like the remote license they had years ago, which snuck in with 3.01 in that case if you had Citrix or TS you had to pay about $20,000 for each remote location. They got a lot of feedback and dropped it very fast.

David_Singleton

What I want to say is that we need form Microsoft a water tight 100% clear agreement so there are no doubts.

jlandeen

I completely agree that we need something that is clear, enforceable....but it SHOULD ALSO be reasonable to sell and does not hinder the products competitveness.

1) I think the present DCO licensing model - if applied correctly during the selling cycle - adds a lot of cost to a project and prices NAV out of competition on small/medium deals
2) I belive that customers own their own data and if they are using SQL with valid CAL/Processor licenses and other direct mechanisms to access their data (oh say in a large system to system integration project) there shouldn't be any undue licensing restrictions (there may be different legal definitions in different jurisdictions of who owns the data and as I'm not a lawyer I haven't delved into this much)
3) The licensing model SHOULD be enforceable, auditable, reasonable and fair (otherwise it's great for MS/Partners who can sell it but it could very well drive customers to competing products). Right now I do not think DCO licensing meets any of those criteria.


David to your comment about enforceability I would argue that there is an enforcement mechanism in place if someone shoplifts from the local store - the enforcement mechanism is to call the police, they investigate, arrest, charge and process the shoplifter. I hear and read about shoplifters being charged on a regular basis....thus this enforcement mechanism is functioning effectively.

In the case of MS and DCO licensing I haven't heard of them ever suing, auditing, following up with clients in any way if they don't properly follow and pay for the DCO licenses - and in some cases of system to system integration determining who should be licensed and auditing that may be difficult. So even though it may violate the agreement to do so if MS has no mechanism for following up and ensuring clients follow it, why would they, there is no enforcement being done. Furthermore I think there may be cases where enforcing it may be difficult (back to the above mentioned point of who owns the data and which jurisdiction are you in). If enforcement of a rule/law isn't being done and/or is difficult to do - it basically removes any inducement to follow the rule/law.