[Freeswitch-users] g.729 Licenses from Freeswitch.org

[Michael Jerris]

On Apr 23, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Brian West wrote:

> 
> On Apr 23, 2010, at 12:30 AM, Gabriel Kuri wrote:
> 
>> Send proof the machine is dead? Would you like a picture of smoke pouring out of a box in flames? 
> 
> A signed paper stating that its failed is usually good enough.  Again right now I'm letting you get away with it three times.  If you have it happen 10 times a month for 3 months in a row thats a suspect.... but if you email me and its happened 12 months or more part then i'm more than willing to let it slide more than 3 times.  I just won't let it be abused.
> 
>> What if you want to re-allocate the machine to do something else or just replace it with a more powerful machine? How are the licenses tied to the machine, MAC address? 
> 
> See above.
> 
>> Any reason the "option" for a floating license model isn't available? It seems given the option between the two, I'd rather have the floating license model so I wouldn't need to prove my machine is dead before asking to have the licenses re-issued, unless of course the license server is dead. We swap production machines in/out all the time, particularly because we perform maintenance on one, so we have a spare, bring it up, take the other one down, perform maintenance, and bring it back up.
> 
> Floating license server isn't out there because you have more chances for things to go wrong and calls to be dropped due to issues related to reaching the server.  The decision was made to not do that.  Have the calls just work is more critical to our carrier customers.

To follow up on this.  This is something that I might want to do in the future, but there are a good number of non-trivial technical challenges to do this in a way that can be stable.  For example, you might want to reserve x licenses for each server, and just set a timeout if they don't check in to release the licenses so they can be assigned to another server.  All of this logic would require a lot more time, work and testing.  Our priority was to get a working stable and efficient codec out the door so people could use it, not to have every bell and whistle available.  The downsides of a floating license server outweigh the upsides at least for now.

>> With this model, floating licenses would be our only option, I really wouldn't want to be purchasing a bunch of extra licenses for spare machines.
>> 
>> I can't imagine you guys really like making us feel like criminals by tieing the license to an actual box, what's wrong with the good 'ole "on your honor policy"? I realize the need to pay for valid g729 licenses, but prove the machine is dead? Is this requirement coming from Sipro?
> 
> We have to make reasonable efforts, its a requirement.
> 

To re-iterate.  We are required by agreements to make reasonable efforts to assure compliance.  This is not something I like or want to do, this is a requirement placed on us.  You should be finding similar clauses in any other implementation out there.  Even a floating license implementation will still have a license server that is somehow locked to something, to keep you from running multiple copies of it.

Mike