Comments on: When CMS Licensing Shafts Architecture

By: Why is CMS licensing so complicated? « Contenttype – a CMS blog

Why is CMS licensing so complicated? « Contenttype – a CMS blog — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:34:49 +0000

[...] Marks (@mcBoof) has written an excellent article titled When CMS Licensing Shafts Architecture , where comprises have to be made to the CMS solution architecture due to how products are licensed. [...]

By: Jon Marks

Jon Marks — Sun, 17 May 2009 08:51:56 +0000

Interesting idea, Adrian. I’ll think about it some more. I’m not convinced that your assumption “repository size is a good indicator of users, cpus and projects ” holds at all. I can think of some fairly complex projects that I’ve done which relatively small repositories. And some simple ones with a hundred thousand PDF files.

The negative you mention regarding large assets is also very true. Similarly, people might start introducing compression to save themselves a fair bit. Maybe, as you say, number of “documents” might be better.

I wonder what others think.

By: Adrian Mateljan

Adrian Mateljan — Sat, 16 May 2009 07:32:11 +0000

I am sure someone will point out the flaw(s) in my naivety – but here goes – what about a tiered repository size model? ie < a MB = Free, < b GB = $x/yr, < c GB = $y/yr and so on. Basing it on repository size would remove most if not all of the architecture issues – want more users, cpus, projects etc? Go for it! Tiers would make it simpler to manage and budget (from both a vendor and customer). In combination it would promote content re-use and repository spring cleaning – which can’t be bad things. Assuming repository size is a good indicator of users, cpus and projects – it probably won’t make much difference in licensing fees either. Also works well for a combined self install / SaaS license. Only negative I can think of off the top of my head (other than implementation!) is customers with large content files (video, hi-res images) – in which case possibly measuring repository size in terms of documents rather than bytes may be better. A “pay for what you use” as opposed to “pay for what you think you might use” system – without the architectural handicaps. Thoughts?

By: Julian Wraitjh

Julian Wraitjh — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:14:25 +0000

I just do not think the “perfect licensing model” exists. It all depends on who you are and what you want and who the vendor is and what they want. Let’s face it, the vendor is there to make money but hopefully make money fairly. If we have to design around license restrictions then we either have chosen the wrong model (or someone chose wrongly for us) or we need to accept that for the best technical solution we need more licenses. From my experience, most US companies seem to buy unlimited everything so that solves that one right there

Maybe the only perfect licensing model is free…

By: Kas Thomas

Kas Thomas — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:22:07 +0000

I think if there’s “a good answer,” it’ll be found out when we ask customers directly. Someone needs to ask customers what THEY think is a good way to pay for software.

The Alfresco guys know a thing or two about this because John N. and Ian H. have seen and heard (from previous lives working at certain well-known companies) what all the licensing tricks are in this business, and which ones customers hate. They created Alfresco’s licensing model in direct competition to the Big Boys’ model, as a selling tool! Day is involved in the same kind of learning arc, and their CRX repository is now sold on a subscription basis (unless you twist their arm and insist on paying some other way). CRX is $18k per year per server-instance (regardless of CPUs or cores; it’s per-motherboard, kind of).

I’d be happy (as I think most buyers would be) with something Simple, at this point.

By: Jon Marks

Jon Marks — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:16:40 +0000

So on the licensing front, is there simply no good answer? I can’t think of one and it seems the vendor can’t either.

Kas just slammed Per Seat as an option.

By: julesdw

julesdw — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:32:12 +0000

I have this issue in daily life too. What often is the case is that there is no one size fits all scenario that is to the best advantage of all customers. And whilst most vendors have a single license model, it has often changed over time as trends change. Years ago, many customers just had a single site running from their CMS, now we are in the territory of multiple brands covering many, many websites. Everything is just more complicated.

As to analytics vendors charging per hit… well it might be why many organisations stopped using WebTrends…

By: chrisregan

chrisregan — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:31:14 +0000

…and then of course there are the implications of a per-proc licensing model should the client choose to look at something like Azul or a similar java server appliance.

I can’t think of many people who would enjoy paying 864 times the license cost!

Ah, the many perils of life with an enterprise CMS… You have to love it.