I really can’t see how you possibly can determine that from this table. Furthermore, the “Processor Core Factor Table” is really relevant only to Oracle Enterprise Edition.

Here, we are discussing Standard Edition, where it is not “cores”, but “sockets” that matter.

Perhaps Zafer can explain what he means. For myself, I see nothing in the “Processor Core Factor Table” that would be relevant in any way to a dispute over licensing for Oracle Standard Edition.

You raise a very worthwhile point here.

The blog-post we are discussing here relates to an edition of the OLSA that is nearly two years old. The OLSA has doubtlessly been updated many times since this was originally posted.

In addition, OLSAs do vary from region to region.

When considering license compliance, you need to be certain you are looking at the correct version of the license for the appropriate region.

When purchasing Oracle products, it is probably also a good idea to print and keep on file the OLSA that was in affect at the time of your purchase, as I have yet to see “historical” versions of the OLSA available on the internet.

But then, the purpose of this blog was never really to “advise” people on licensing issues, but rather to point out what was — at the time — a new and interesting feature in the OLSA.

http://www.oracle.com/corporate/contracts/library/processor-core-factor-table.pdf

I appreciate for your input after reviewing that posting on OTN.

I realized that Oracle removed the “socket” term from their OLSA – at least for the international customers – and now uses the term “processor” (again). I checked the following link (http://www.oracle.com/corporate/license/agreements.html) and read multiple OLSA’s and related definition docs for different countries (UK, Israel, Greece, Turkey, Ireland). That page did not list the OLSA for USA (therefore, I can’t tell if it is different or not).

note: the Oracle processor core factor table (www.oracle.com/corporate/contracts/library/processor-core-factor-table.pd) was updated as of 04/08/2010 and lists the core counts for specific CPU’s, therefore making life easier to determine which CPU types are considered as MCM or not – but if Oracle changed their OLSA again from socket to processor (at least for the international customers) – that creates another confusion ?

Thank you for your valuable inputs. It helps when I present the issues to others (including the Oracle Sales, OPN and our legal counsel).

R/ Zaf

Hans Forbrich does not appear to contradict me in any way. Nor I him.

Hans simply points out that people in the sales organization can initiate the formal process needed to produce a formal (written and signed) amendment to the OLSA.

I simply point out that in the absence of such a written amendment (signed by a duly authorized officer of Oracle Corp.) nothing your Oracle sales rep tells you is enforceable in any way.

Your Oracle sales rep (unless he/she is a VP or better) does not have the authority to execute these agreements.

I see no conflict.

Anyway, your license agreements are your business, not mine. Conduct your affairs any way you (and your lawyers) see fit.

Cheers!

Please refer to the following URL on OTN if you have a chance. Especially look what Hans Forbrich wrote (contradicts to what you are saying when it comes to OLSA vs Oracle Sales). BTW, I never said that SE1 is qualified to run on a 4 “pysical” socket box when only 1 socket is occupied. And we have our own lawyers ;) but thanx for pointing that out.

Here is the related URL:
—————————-
http://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=923590

The following is from the same OTN posting (provided by MrFaize)
—————————————–

Some much conflicting information around. Here’s some more to add fuel to the fire:

A 2x quad core (eight cores) HP Server running SE1

http://tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=109033001

and this HP sales PDF (dated Sept 2009) offering configs with 2x quad core running SE1 (see page 3 of link)

http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/GetPDF.aspx/4AA2-9228ENW.pdf

————————–

Anyway, thank you again
R/ Zaf

The only “authority” here is the license agreement itself (which does not define “MCM”) and — ultimately — the judge who will eventually rule in Oracle’s lawsuit against you (or the judge ruling on the appeal in the unlikely event that Oracle loses the first time.)

Let’s be completely clear here: Oracle sales reps do NOT have a say in how your license will be interpreted. That is done by Oracle “License Management Service” (I think I have the right name there) and ultimately by the courts.

If your sales rep promises you that your multi-die Intel (or other) processor is not an “MCM”, just follow up with this:

“The, of course, you will be happy to have an Oracle Vice President provide me a signed amendment to the OLSA to that effect.”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for that amendment, though. And without it, the “word” of your sales rep (or any other Oracle employee) is worthless.

Finally, while it is true that you do not need to purchase licenses for unoccupied sockets, the unoccupied sockets *do* affect the eligibility of your hardware to be licensed for SE ot SE-1.

In the meantime, it is the definition of the word “socket” that is the crux of the matter here. A “socket” is no longer a physical piece of metal and ceramic on a circuit board — it is now a “logical” construct defined (vaguely) by the license agreement.

The bottom line here is this: If you are concerned about complying with your license, hire a lawyer before you make a purchase. And for heaven’s sake, don’t rely on your Oracle Sales Rep — nor on me — to interpret your license for you! Hire a lawyer. Your own lawyer.

In this case, be sure to get a lawyer who understands the meanings of the words “chip”, “wafer”, “die”, and “carrier” and the subtle distinctions between them.

And one last time, DO NOT RELY ON ME. I am not a lawyer, and even if I were, I am not YOUR lawyer.

Sadly, the information you were given is not completely accurate.

Oracle Stanard Edition products are indeed licensed by SOCKET, not by CORE. This fact has been consistently stated throughout my writing.

But in the OLSA, the terms “socket”, and “physical socket”, are NOT interchangeable, and must not be confused.

Yes, you can indeed license Oracle Standard Edition ONE for a server with 2 @ quad-core Opteron processors (providing that is the maximum capacity of the server), as AMD Opteron processors are NOT (to the best of my knowledge) implemented as MULTI-CHIP-MODULES.

You MAY NOT, however, license Oracle Standard Edition ONE on a similar server with Intel Quad-core Xeon processors, as (many) Quad-Core Xeon processors ARE implemented as multi-chip-modules, and EACH such processor actually counts as (at least) TWO “sockets”.

By the way, the last time I read the OLSA, the statement “If the machine has 4 sockets but only 2 sockets are occupied – SE1 license can be used instead of SE” is entirely FALSE.

Let me repeat that: THAT STATEMENT IS FALSE.

Oracle Standard Edition ONE cannot be licensed on a server with more than 2 physical sockets, regardless of how many sockets are left unoccupied.

The eligibility to of a given server to run SE or SE-1 is determined by its MAXIMUM capacity, not by its CONFIGURED capacity.

At least, that is how it was the LAST time I read the license, and I have never heard of this particular rule changing.