Add the additional license files in and HUP the freeswitch_licence_server thats running. /b On Apr 22, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Ken Fulmer wrote:

Ok, that’s not a problem. We’ll only need to do this when a customer’s server dies.

How about the question about adding licenses together? If we’ve purchased separate licenses, how can we add each one to a server?

Thanks,

Ken

If you buy more licenses... activate them on the machine,, copy the .conf file to /etc/freeswitch then restart or HUP the freeswitch_licence_server that is running and it will add the licenses together into one. /b On Apr 22, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Ken Fulmer wrote:

I apologize, but I’m not sure what you mean.

Thanks,

Ken

From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Brian West Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:06 PM To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] g.729 Licenses from Freeswitch.org

Add the additional license files in and HUP the freeswitch_licence_server thats running.

/b

You know I think I might know what is going on... /b On Apr 26, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Ken Fulmer wrote:

I try to add the license files to the system but get the following error: ERROR [(null)]

I noticed that the license.zip file has 0 bytes.

Ken

Please disregard. Once I rebooted the server, the license files were combined. From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Ken Fulmer Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:01 PM To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] g.729 Licenses from Freeswitch.org I try to add the license files to the system but get the following error: ERROR [(null)] I noticed that the license.zip file has 0 bytes. Ken From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Brian West Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 4:14 PM To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] g.729 Licenses from Freeswitch.org If you buy more licenses... activate them on the machine,, copy the .conf file to /etc/freeswitch then restart or HUP the freeswitch_licence_server that is running and it will add the licenses together into one. /b On Apr 22, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Ken Fulmer wrote: I apologize, but I'm not sure what you mean. Thanks, Ken From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Brian West Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:06 PM To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] g.729 Licenses from Freeswitch.org <http://Freeswitch.org/> Add the additional license files in and HUP the freeswitch_licence_server thats running. /b

Send proof the machine is dead? Would you like a picture of smoke pouring out of a box in flames? 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? 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. 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? Cheers, Gabe On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:

If you have to replace the machine you'll have to send me the proof the machine is dead and I can reset them... I can only do this 3 times before you have to repurchase the license.

/b

On Apr 22, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Ken Fulmer wrote:

1. Are these licenses additive? In other words, if I’ve purchased one for a machine and need a total of five, can I purchase four more and add them to the mix? 2. If we have to replace a machine, how can we replace the licenses without repurchasing them?

Thanks,

Ken Fulmer

_______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org

_______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org

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

Responses inline ... On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Anthony Minessale < anthony.minessale@gmail.com> wrote:

Based on your response, I could be wrong but, I get the impression you are intentionally trying to stir up some kind of controversy. Is there a specific reason you feel the need to raise your concerns on our general users mailing lists and not to consulting@freeswitch.org where they belong. This has gone from asking some questions to some sort of rhetoric against our policy that clearly already addresses your concerns.

I'm not trying to stir up any controversy, I simply responded to Brian's request on the mailing list, to "prove the machine is dead" when someone asked about having a license reissued. We might have a need to purchase g729 licenses down the road, and I certainly think it's fair enough for us or anyone else purchasing licenses, to know what you would expect of those requesting a license reissued for any valid reason (not just for a dead box). Requesting proof the box is dead, obviously seems a little difficult to prove, which is why I posed those questions. Brian's and Mike's responses of a signed paper stating the reason, seems fine to me. There's nothing documented on how the licensing actually works other than how to get it running - is it tied to the MAC address or some other hardware ID, that would be good to know? If we were to purchase licenses, we'd want to test them in our development environment first. I think something should be added to the wiki so people don't accidentally activate the licenses on their development server first, in order to test out mod_com_g729, and then think they're just going to move the licenses over to their production server and expect it to work. Why should I email consulting@freeswitch.org, and exclude other people in the community that might be purchasing g729 licenses, I think they're completely valid questions anyone in the community should know the answer to, no? Do you really think you are going to have a whole bunch of boxes fail to

some degree that we will not be willing to re-issue your licenses or are you just more interested in starting a flame war on our mailing list? The licenses are to the specifications of the requirements of the contracts we signed. We did so taking the on the risk and responsibility to make g729 available to the community.

No, I don't really think all of our boxes are going to fail at once, it was about reallocation of resources or upgrading a box, which occurs more often. I think it's fair for us to know what to expect should we ask to have a license reissued. We had a discussion about floating licenses and concluded it was unwise and

not worth the risk and security implications. If you use g729 you know how much traffic you are going to use and if you want to remain stable you should not want to add another moving part to the equation that could go down and make all of your calls fail

While I understand your reasoning of adding something else to the equation that could fail and cause dropped calls, I also feel that's a business decision that should be made by the company purchasing the licenses, assuming they're given both options (floating and server assigned). Given my choice, I'd probably take that "chance" and would rather have floating licenses but will take whatever you guys offer (not Howler), as I'm committed to supporting the project as much as possible.

This is the policy we have implemented and I think you are getting the good end of the bargain with a free telephony server with an efficient stable g729 codec implementation at an affordable cost. If a high-enough demand arises for floating licenses and we have the time and resources to implement it, we may reconsider it but only a tiny fraction of our customers have even asked about it, let alone demanded it.

Yes, FreeSWITCH is awesome! Cheers, Gabe