< Back to LISTSERV archives

LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU


View:

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LICENSING Home

LICENSING Home

LICENSING  2001

LICENSING 2001

Subject:

Re: Software Licensing

From:

mknox {Marg Knox} <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The EDUCAUSE Software Licensing Issues Constituent Group Listserv <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:15:10 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (68 lines)

The new "Software Assurance" program is 29% of license cost per year, or so
I have been told.

I have not looked at Teri's numbers yet, but one other possibility comes to
mind: The CA is based on employee FTEs and , at least here, we have more
computers than we have FTE's (including labs, etc). Years ago, MS used a
ratio of 1:1.2 (employee FTE count: computers). Thanks Teri for the
analysis.

I also note that for those who are renewing (versus new to CA program), that
the CA program does have a 10% cap in place (increase from one year to next)
which accounts for why I see a "renewing" rate for employees that is lower
than if you are new to the program (I got a rate table from an authorized
reseller).

Regards,

Marg

-----Original Message-----
From: Teri O'Rourke [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 05:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LICENSING] Software Licensing


My analysis is attached.  I looked at different scenarios for average
upgrade frequency as you'll see in the spreadsheet.  I also looked at our
real world plans for 2000-2003.  In all cases Campus Agreement was less
expensive even with a 3 year application, 4 year OS upgrade frequency.  We
don't even use all of the Microsoft products, so my analysis only includes
those we use.  My analysis considered that if we purchased perpetual
licenses we wouldn't buy for every computer on campus.  If you factor in the
time to manage license tracking and distribution versus an annual FTE
reporting it gets even more attractive.  My analysis included a look at the
costs with Upgrade Advantage also.  Of course Upgrade Advantage is going
away, and  I'd be willing to bet, Microsoft's new maintenance program costs
more than UA.  The last spreadsheet is one Microsoft provided to me to do
the analysis, it's a more generic approach, and considers all of their
products not just the ones we use at SOU.  We partnered with another
University on a University System agreement.  Our Partner had over 5,000 FTE
and so we enjoyed the over 3,000 FTE pricing level.  We did not license for
students as that didn't seem to be affordable to us at this time.   Remember
that by just purchasing for Faculty and Staff FTE you can still install the
software on all campus lab computers.  The student licensing is for their
home computers not the labs.  Please don't share the pricing information
with anyone, as resellers are a bit sensitive about that.

I'd be happy to answer any of your questions about the analysis or benefits
of Campus Agreement.  I definitely think this is the way to go!

Teri O'Rourke
Associate Director, Systems & Operations
Southern Oregon University
Ashland, OR  97520
541-552-6451

>>> Terrie Rowe <[log in to unmask]> 06/22/01 01:16PM >>>
Has someone developed a cost/benefit or other cost analysis to justify the
purchase of a Campus Agreement for Microsoft licensing that they'd be
willing to share?  If you made the move to a Campus Agreement, how did you
justify the move?

Thanks for your help.

Theresa Rowe
Director, Information Systems
Oakland University

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Join or Leave LICENSING

Join or Leave LICENSING


Archives

2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2