This is absolutely driving me crazy. I keep getting different answers depending on who I ask. You would think this would be simple, but it isn't. Ed Brill even blogged on this subject late last year. Appears that there is now a whole area on IBM/Lotus' web site dedicated now to Lotus Notes/Domino Licensing. However, web-only custom built domino applications and how to license end-users (and more specifically, whether maintenance is needed on browser clients) isn't really covered. Chris Byrne and Steve Castledine both approached the subject of maintenance for web browsers on the blog entry Ed posted back in December. However, it didn't appear the question was answered so you'll notice in comments 21 and 23 I re-asked the question and in comments 22 and 24, Ed answers. Great I thought, it has been comfirmed! You don't need maintenance for web browser clients. I hop on the phone and call our Lotus reseller and lay out what we need. They call IBM to get quotes and then "red flags" go off and IBM wants to talk to me because I only want to pay maintenance on the servers and not the clients.
Here's the scenario:
You have a custom web only app built on Domino, how do you properly license it? If you know you are going to have a lot of users but just don't know how many, you can go with the IBM Lotus Domino Utility Server.
IBM Lotus Domino Utility Server is an application server license option that includes unlimited access to non-mail applications from a Web browser or a separately priced Lotus Notes for Collaboration client. Use of Domino Designer to build in-house applications is separately priced.
With Domino Utility Server, Web browser users do not need a client access license even if the application requires signon (authentication with the Domino Directory). This benefit makes it well suited for applications with a large or unknown number of users, such as intranet/extranet self-service applications and Internet communities.
Well, first we know the number of users we'll have. About 500 internal users and about 100-200 external users. In fact, we don't expect we'll reach that number for at least two years.
Now, here's the kicker, my company already owns over 2,300+ of the IBM Lotus Communications CEO bundle licenses. It includes Domino Web Access for Collaboration which would cover web access to our custom app. The only problem is that we haven't paid maintenance since 1999.
However, ..... is this really a problem? Do we really need to pay for maintenance for our "clients" if our client is a browser? I understand having to buy a license for our users but to continue paying for maintenance on something we don't use doesn't make sense to me. Therefore, if we don't have to pay maintenance for our already purchased 2,300 CALs then our 500 internal users are covered. We would only need to purchase IBM Lotus Domino Web Access for Collaboration licenses for our external users. Makes sense to me, what about you?
Now, using this logic, I see I have two options on my hands.
- Go with the Domino Utility Server license and not worry about CALs. For a 2 server cluster with 2 CPUs per server, you would pay about $80K the first year (~$20K/cpu) and then around $44K per year for maintenance (~11K/cpu).
- For the servers, purchase the Domino Enterprise License, use our existing 2,300 CALs for our internal users, and then purchase new CALs for our external users. This would mean, for the same 2 server, 4 total cpu scenario as above, the first year cost would be $12K for the servers (~3K/cpu) and, if we went ahead and bought 200 CALs for our external users (remember, our internal users are covered with the existing CALs already purchased), $21,800 (~$109 x 200) for a grand total of $33,800. This is almost $50K cheaper than the first option. For maintenance, we would only need to pay around $6,800 for the Domino Enterprise Licenses for the servers (~$1,700 x 4)
So, the big question I have is this: If I want to keep Software maintenance current for my Domino servers, do I also need to pay for maintenance for my client software, where my client software is a browser?
If you read the third to last faq of the Lotus Notes/Domino Software Maintenance FAQ it would appear not. However, I'm getting a lot of different opinions on the matter and I'm even waiting on word from some IBM/Lotus officials on the matter.
Well, enough of my rambling. I'm supposed to hear back from IBM later this week. I'll let you know what they say. Perhaps, good or bad, this will make them update the FAQs to even be more clearing for web-only custom Domino apps.
Just to add a bit more fog to the scene, the answer to that particular question (the famous third from the last) can be interpreted differently. If you are using the Notes client for access, you can choose to stick with an outdated client that eventually will not be able to access some version of Domino server or use applications that include new features, so there's a built-in end of life. Not so with the browser -- IBM can argue that the "client" is in a perpetual state of upgrade by virtue of the fact that the server is in a perpetual state of upgrade, since the server can be said to generate the application client at run time.
I don't suppose it would be feasible to fire 1301 people to get the enterprise under 1000, then get the Utility Express, eh?
Have you looked at Domino Utilty Server *Express* licensing? If I remember correctly, Express is good for 1000 users and gives you all of the nice Utility features such as clustering. The only major limitation that I remember reading about is the inability to use Directory Assistance to use multiple NABs for authentication.
Problem there, Erik. The eligiblity for using Express depends on the size of the enterprise, not the number of users. In other words, if your enterprise is under 1000 people, you can have 6 billion users on an Express server for all IBM cares. (I'd like to see the Pentium that could handle that, but it's possible under the terms of the Express license.) If you've got 2300 people in-house, then you can't use Express even if you're only serving a half-dozen outsiders. (Thus my "fire 1301 people" suggestion.)
Well hmmm... I didn't remember exactly what the cap was for Utility Express, but I definitely didn't see your message, Stan. Maybe I was looking at an old cached version of the page? (Though that would be a heck of a cache issue -- 2 days?!??!)
Or maybe I was just really tired :)
Good blog