Ed Brill

Post a Comment

1. 1  Lisa Duke http://www.simplified-tech.com | 10/9/2009 10:29:14 AM

   What if the client has Express licenses? Do we sell them 1 Enterprise CAL or are they ok if they have paid for Express Collaboration?

   Also, is Designer free but you can choose to pay for support, like Symphony?

   Thanks!

1. 2  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/9/2009 10:44:49 AM
   
   

   @1 Yes, for Express, they need one Enterprise CAL for each Designer user who will connect into the Express environment. I am having the FAQ updated to make this clear.

   There is no paid support "just" for Designer. Buying an Enterprise CAL is the route to support for Designer.

1. 3  Tripp Black http://www.mindwatering.com | 10/9/2009 11:03:53 AM

   HI Ed,

   I'm thankful for IBM Lotus taking this direction. However I feel this licensing hasn't been throught through completely.

   I understand that the intent is for the Designer client to be used locally and by a "novice" developer. It allows someone to do Notes development w/o needing a server.

   However, as your second to last paragragh indicated, a test server to see if it works is almost always required for any "real" application testing and development as local preview does not currently work if a form has authentication -- a form doesn't allow anonymous access.

   As a seasoned developer I can get around most of the local development issues, but a novice user isn't going to understand why certain things do or don't work locally or if they do pay the CAL, then why their new app doesn't work when moved to a server. They haven't got the depth yet.

   A community server or some other workaround as you aluded above almost becomes a requirement. Otherwise the designer is nothing but a free trail with no 30 day explosion.

   In addition, if you are trying to get the small shop as a previous post aluded, this is counter productive. The whole point for a small shop (ex. a current Lotus Express license shop) is to download Designer for free, develop locally, or <shudder>, on their production server, some widget app, deploy it onto their server, and presto get hooked.

   To me the limited CAL you currently have allows use only for some curious play, or a for a student. The first is useless because there isn't a good way to hook the customer. The second is nice but is it all worth it just for the latter?

   From my perspective the true hook is the fact the Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino are an application client and server. Once you create the apps and use them, you are hooked. That is the hook.

   A positive hook is the intergration you can do with the Notes client, the "nice play" with Internet protocols, and the HTTP task that allows Notes and web applications that are quick and relatively cheap to create and deploy. Once they have them, they tend to create more.

1. 4  Richard Schwartz http://www.poweroftheschwartz.com | 10/9/2009 11:18:19 AM

   Ed, I think I'm missing something here. I hope I am! Are you really saying that if you have Domino Collaboration Express licenses for every user in your organization, plus the free Domino Designer, you can deploy custom applications that you purchase from an ISV or download from OpenNTF, but you can not deploy the applications that you wrote yourself with the free Designer?

1. 5  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/9/2009 11:27:34 AM
   
   

   @3 I'm sort of taken aback at the thought that we didn't think through this. We thought through it quite extensively! For one, you've missed one of the use cases -- a developer in an environment that does have Domino but doesn't have access to 8.5.1 for a variety of reasons. I think that is a pretty big population. For the rest, yes, we think that it is worth it for the casual developer or student to check out Domino Designer, even without a server. I understand the limitations of local browser preview, but there are no limitations for local Notes client application testing. Not all use cases are perfect, but many are even without any server. And as I've said, we plan a scenario for some kind of server sandbox.

   @4 someone is going to have to have an Enterprise CAL in an Express environment in the same way that today someone has to have a Domino Designer license in an Express environment. That "someone" could be the business partner/ISV who built the application. But yes, if someone who has the free Designer in an Express environment wants to deploy an app they build in it, they need to buy an Enterprise CAL at US$159. The model is set up that way for support, for entitlements, for all the rest.

1. 6  Richard Schwartz http://www.poweroftheschwartz.com | 10/9/2009 11:40:16 AM

   @5 Ed, Hmmm... So if I'm a customer (Express or not!) it seems like it's actually my responsibility to verify that any custom application that I purchase or download from an ISV, BP, or open source site was created by someone with a valid paid Domino Designer license!? I would be in violation of *my* license if the supplier was not actually licensed? This seems like an incredible burden to place on your customers. And putting on my BP/ISV hat, there's also a big burden placed on me in order to be able to prove to my customers that I have a valid Designer license! Hmmm...

1. 7  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/9/2009 11:48:13 AM
   
   

   @6 I don't see how this is any different than today. At this very moment, you can obtain a trial download of Lotus Domino Designer from ibm.com without a license. Building an application is certainly possible with that trial, but the current license says "1) use the Program only for internal evaluation, testing, or demonstration purposes".

1. 8  Miguel Angel Calvo http://www.zarazaga.net | 10/9/2009 11:52:05 AM

   @6 Is it not the same now ? I mean, if a provider develops an app for your company, he's supposed to have the right licencing, but you never can know.

   I guess the licencing model is based,as Ed says, in providing support to that companies that are using Designer in their production environments.

1. 9  Tripp Black http://www.mindwatering.com | 10/9/2009 12:28:03 PM

   @5

   My apologies for the way I phrased the thinking it through part. I didn't intend to offend you and your group.

   I'm also looking forward to the community sandbox. That will address the local limitations we've mentioned.

   You are correct about the designer being useful for the case of companies not yet upgraded to 8.5.1 - You mentioned it in your original post -- I didn't miss that group. However, for the ones on continuous passport that develop/extend "old apps", they are already licensed for a current verison of Designer. It's just a matter of whether they are sanctioned by their company to go ahead and download/install the new release from the passport site. That's why I didn't include them. Your reply did make me prompt me to bring to mind a sub group which I did not previously consider - the ones who dropped passport in the past and want to try out all the cool stuff we can do now to evaluate another buy. (e.g. XPages and Composite apps).

   I also see your second part (@4, @6, and @7) the same as today. We (Mindwatering) bought me the designer to create/customize apps. We have the designer licensed for me to create apps, which then I create replicas on a Domino server when we deploy it. The customer doesn't need a Designer license until they want to extend/customize the app delivered.

   Thanks.

1. 10  Richard Schwartz http://www.poweroftheschwartz.com | 10/9/2009 12:44:25 PM

   @7 Mabye it isn't any different from today, and maybe it does make perfect sense... but it certainly has exposed an aspect of licensing that I've never been aware of.

   Did anybody ever realize before now that their valid Domino Collaboration license, which covers custom applications, does not cover custom applications developed by some 3rd party without a valid Designer license? Or that the "get out of jail free" card that gets you out of any liability for dealing with 3rd party apps created by unlicensed developers is simply to buy one paid copy of Domino Designer. I can tell you that in the years that I was out there consulting, nobody ever asked me to prove that I had a valid Designer license... so I doubt that anybody realized that they could be in violation of their licenses if I was in violation of mine!

   Also, I haven't followed all the discussions about rules and procedures at OpenNTF lately, but I'm now wondering: do all contributors to OpenNTF have to prove that they hold a valid, paid Domino Designer license?

1. 11  Henning Heinz  | 10/9/2009 1:11:00 PM

   I am not sure if I wouldn't find it much better if you would sell an IBM Lotus Designer Express license for the price of an Enterprise CAL. Otherwise I believe that a lot of customers will not be compliant to your rules (because it is too complicated).

   @Richard I doubt that your theory is valid.

1. 12  Richard Schwartz http://www.poweroftheschwartz.com | 10/9/2009 1:56:26 PM

   @11 Which part of my theory do you doubt is valid? My first remark in @4 was "I think I'm missing something here", so I would not be surprised if I'm still misinterpreting something.

1. 13  Henning Heinz  | 10/9/2009 2:53:56 PM

   Richard, I think that you don't need a Designer license to deploy a third-party application. And I don't think that a customer is responsible to control that the selling company has a valid Designer license.

1. 14  Mike McP http://www.openntf.org/Projects/pmt.nsf/ProjectLookup/mPortal | 10/9/2009 3:06:56 PM

   @3 I think the big win for this is existing shops who have CALS, but previously throught twice about allowing other people to develop, due to the barrier to entry, which was the cost of Designer. Now a shop that is largely an email shop can experiment more with custom development, without any real risk. This is largely how Notes became so popular back in the early days, but they've sort of been coasting on the entrenched apps from those glory days, where customer are reliant on old apps that tech-savvy users created. Now I think we're turning back to a great strategy of allowing easier development in a truly RAD tool.

   Ed mentioned hoping some users who didn't have access to 8.5.1 designer will now have access, but I'm not sure how many organizations would allow someone to bust out 8.5.1, simply because the designer was now free. I'd take the safer, more supportable route of either getting everyone up to 8.5.1 or shelling out the $ for a more easily supported Designer that conforms to the company's current version.

   There's another audience, but admittedly it's harder to capture...those are the folks who are budding developers who might not have a CAL or server. As much as we'd like to pretend that's a big market, it probably isn't currently. I think IBM has to do a lot more promoting to have that become a legit audience. It's just too easy to already use other free development tools, and Lotus really needs some showcase applications to get those developers interested in taking the leap to Notes and giving it a shot. A free designer is a start, but there is a lot to be done...very complex issue.

   There a part of me that worries about the xpages, and additional complexity of all the current Notes development possibilities. It's great for me, but I don't want to water down the theme that Notes is truly the RAD'est platform out there. If an HR, Sales, or Marketing department wants to write a quick app with @formulas and sparse LS, I hope we still actively encourage that. I think that's core Notes functionality that business want, need, and should be advertised. It may not be as 'sexy' as an xpages demo, but it has value, and Notes shines in that area where there really is nothing else like it.

1. 15  Darren Duke http://blog.darrenduke.net | 10/9/2009 5:01:58 PM

   @all, this is no different than today. You can't use designer for production code without a designer license. Express or otherwise.

   The issue I had trouble wrapping my noggin' around was that designer is free to develop with, but to to use in production. Ergo, before you roll an NSF into production, SOMEONE that provided the NSF, either a single developer, your organization, an ISV selling it to you or a BP provisioning it needs an Enterprise CAL. Provided someone in that chain has an Enterprise CAL (although how you ensure this is a bit of a head scratcher) they you are OK.

   Or am I mis-reading this?

   I'm guessing (and looking for guidance here, Ed) that anyone in an organization who is developing NSF that will be used beyond testing, development and demos, will need an Enterprise CAL. Is that correct? So if I have 5 developers, I'll need 5 Enterprise CALs even if I am an Express customer?

   Who knew "free" could be so difficult ;)

1. 16  Graham Dodge  | 10/9/2009 6:39:20 PM

   Guys... I think you're making this all too hard. IBM/Lotus is allowing everyone to download and use Designer for free. That means you can run the designer executable on your local PC. If you want to run that app on a Domino server then you need a paid-up collaboration server license . Sound pretty simple to me.

   re: Supplier licensing - You really think IBM/Lotus is going to take a correctly licensed end-user company to court just because their supplier didn't have a valid designer license?

   * First, how would IBM ever know?

   * Second, IBM have no case in equity against someone who is correctly licensed for their own CALs and innocently ignorant about their supplier's licenses.

   * Third, what do you think IBM expect the end-user org to do even if they were found 'guilty'? Are you suggesting IBM would want them to pay for the supplier's designer license? I don't think so - Microsoft PR would have a wonderful time with that event.

   Lets not strain at gnats and swallow camels here - IBM may haul the pirate supplier over the coals, but from a practical business perspective I'm betting IBM would probably apologize to the correctly licensed end-user for interrupting their supply chain.

1. 17  Mikkel Heisterberg http://lekkimworld.com | 10/10/2009 4:59:04 AM

   I think this is a very smart move by IBM and something we should commend them for doing. It will attract new developers and not having access to develop using a server is a fair and reasonable restriction IMO. Anything that makes tools more accessible is great news.

1. 18  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 10/10/2009 7:57:36 AM

   @16 - I don't know... I've known some IBM sales reps to do some remarkably stupid things when it comes to license compliance at the end of their quarter. IBM as a whole is never going to torpedo a customer because they have an app from a 3rd party that didn't actually own Designer, but an individual rep might.

1. 19  Ian Scott  | 10/10/2009 10:10:46 AM

   I'm finding much of this a bit funny (peculiar). Maybe I'm presuming too much but I've always assumed - and yes, I know, I should never assume anything - that:

   1. any company or organisation deploying Notes and Domino would buy at least one copy of Designer even if they have no in-house developers just because it would be prudent to do so.

   2. any company, organisation, or person who develops a Notes/Domino application that is used by someone else would buy a Designer license because (if for no other reason) the fear of the consequences of getting found out would be too damaging going forward both in terms of what IBM (or a representative of IBM) may do and what the person using the application may do when they realise they can't rely on long term support. In the former case I've always presumed IBM could henceforth refuse to license someone who hasn't bought Designer and has de facto presented themselves as a Notes/Domino developer and that the presumptive fear of that should be enough to deter anyone while in the latter case, a company that has deployed Notes/Domino and is paying for CALs and server licences will not want to be on the wrong side of IBM and will ditch the errant developer.

   I'm with Mikkel @17 on this. This is great news.

   I just can't see what the fuss is about and more so if a Domino sandbox in the cloud comes to pass.

1. 20  Rod Stauffer  | 10/10/2009 1:18:18 PM

   @16: To my understanding, you've oversimplified things with the following:

   "I think you're making this all too hard. IBM/Lotus is allowing everyone to download and use Designer for free. That means you can run the designer executable on your local PC. If you want to run that app on a Domino server then you need a paid-up collaboration server license . Sound pretty simple to me."

   Not correct from a couple standpoints:

   1. You've mixed client and server licensing. How Domino is licensed is a separate matter, aside from the obvious that it can't be a Domino Messaging or Domino Messaging Express (as custom apps aren't included in those server licenses).

   2. Running an app on Domino is not the only time an Enterprise CAL is required. It's required *any* time an app is used (presumably in production), and/or whenever Domino is involved (in which case, appropriate Domino license also required).

   The free Designer license covers local design / test / demo. Beyond that, Enterprise CAL. In many cases the user will already have that CAL (apparently Collab. Express CAL is not good enough though...).

   Supporting statements from Ed's post:

   "If you want to use, deploy that application or otherwise distribute it, you need to have a Domino Enterprise Client Access License. If you want to use, deploy that application or otherwise distribute it, you need to have a Domino Enterprise Client Access License."

   "The CAL also opens up the use of that free Designer as a full Notes client -- the ability to use applications (from a server or even locally) and connect to Domino."

   So, the free Designer license doesn't include anything and everything local. Using an app beyond dev/test/demo--even locally--requires an Enterprise CAL.

   Not terribly difficult, but not the same as posted @16. Course I could be wrong too.

1. 21  Richard Dickison  | 10/11/2009 5:50:31 AM

   I have been a Lotus Admin and semi-developer since the beginning. From a product perspective the removal of the designer code from the client many years ago was a very big disappointment. At that time people in the user community were turning out wonderful Notes apps and then Lotus pulled the plug on them. This really left a foul taste for a lot of people. Users turned to other software and a lot of momentum for the product was lost, in my opinion, for no good reason. The company I worked for at the time had well over 1000 active, user developed applications.

   Now I am a consultant and I support over 20 companies with their Lotus admin and development. Those 20 companies have a combined TOTAL of less than 25 Domino applications. They are small business and just don't want to pay for a Domino developer when they can do acceptable applications on other platforms with the tools they have.

   Making the designer available to the general public again is a great first step. Now we have to find a way to convince people to use it. I have my development server ready. I am already thinking of ways to explain to our users what kind of application standards we will expect before we move an application to production. But the big problem is how are we going to get them educated in the fundamentals and make them realize how easy it is to develop simple and very useful Notes applications.

   I don't really care if they ever develop a web app. All the users have a Notes client so if we can teach them to develop good apps for the Notes client that will be wonderful. Creating a form and some views was enough to get people interested in the old days. I hope it is enough now.

1. 22  Martin  | 10/12/2009 3:31:37 AM

1. 23  Martin http://martinhumpolec.cz | 10/12/2009 3:32:21 AM

   @2 I thought you aren't allowed to mix the Express and normal style of licencing. Sounds like a change then.

1. 24  Ken  | 10/12/2009 11:16:49 AM

   This sounds great for an unemployed Notes developer like me who needs to keep his skills up to date while searching for a job or contract position.

1. 25  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/12/2009 12:28:46 PM
   
   

   @23 You always had to buy Designer to use it in an Express environment. Now you can buy an Enterprise CAL and use it in an Express environment.

   @24 exactly the point.

1. 26  Rob  | 10/19/2009 7:39:14 PM

   So....

   What do you need in an environment with, say 1000 users when you need to do all of the following:

   1) Modify/tailor/customize a few existing apps, Sametime, DWA/iNotes signon screens, etc.

   2) Create a few notes apps/databases to do system-type stuff (e.g., poke through all the mail files to tidy things up, read external data to update the Domino Directory, etc.)

   3) Create fix-it agents in user mail files or other Notes databases

   4) Install and run things like TLCC-type training apps

   But, you aren't supporting end-user access to locally created application databases that are on the server?

   How do the rules change if you want a user(s) to be able to open up old (archived) copies of locally written, custom applications--using, say, a local copy of the database rather than one on the server?

   I was also confused: what changes when you need to have your servers clustered (vs. just stand-alone)?

   Thanks

1. 27  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/19/2009 9:16:43 PM
   
   

   the beauty of the new license program is that the answer for all of these is "Enterprise CAL". One per user.

1. 28  Rob  | 10/20/2009 1:40:39 PM

   Thanks. A few add-on questions:

   1) In the license agreement, both CALs grant the ability to "access an IBM Lotus Domino Server via: a) a standards-based (Post Office Protocol "POP" or Internet Message Access Protocol "IMAP") client and/or web browser, or b) IBM Lotus iNotes". That doesn't appear to allow connecting with the Notes Client using the Notes protocol(s). That is surely either an oversight on my part (or in the agreement).

   2) I'm a bit confused by what can be done in a mixed CAL environment--or if you can have such a thing. It sounds like any user with the messaging CAL is restricted to pretty much accessing only unmodified templates, etc. That can be rather tough, since many SPRs have workarounds/fixes that involve modifying the mail template--which would violate the license terms.

   Your comments make it sound like the CAL distinctions surround whether or not the user can make design changes...but the license seems to read more like the distintions surround whether or not the user can even USE anything but a small number of unmodified, default templates.

   3) As for Samtime, there is a lot of discussion about not changing ANY default settings or policies...but, as I recall, the basic installation just about requires some things to be modified (trusted servers, etc.)--apparently in conflict with the license terms.

   It sounds a bit nit-picky...but I'm really just trying to get my head around things so I understand how the changes apply to my environment!

   Thanks

   Ref URL: { Link }

1. 29  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/20/2009 4:32:13 PM
   
   

   the blog is a hard forum to answer specific licensing questions.

   1) The license gives the user the right to "use Lotus Notes". Perhaps the use of Notes to connect to Domino needs to be better/more thoroughly called out. But the right to use it against Domino is clearly there.

   2) You can mix CALs, just like you can mix Notes / iNotes messaging/collaboration licenses today.

   3) The Messaging CAL can only use the out of the box templates; the Enterprise CAL is the same in terms of using any Notes application bought or built as the "...for collaboration" licenses state today.

   4) (Your 3) not familiar with these issues.

1. 30  Rob  | 10/20/2009 9:44:06 PM

   Thanks, that helps clarify things for me--especially with your answers 2+3 (I was trying to keep things pretty high-level, since I agree this is the wrong place for site-specific licensing questions).

   FYI: As for your 4 (my original #3), I was looking at the license terms specific to the entitlement for the use of "IBM Lotus Sametime Entry" (as referenced by my link earlier), where they mentioned not being able to enable or use "capabilities beyond the default settings in the Program as provided to the Licensee...". I think I know what they're getting at but I was a bit puzzled by the use of the words "default settings" (since you need to make some changes to "default settings" to integrate it properly with DWA/iNotes).

1. 31  MarvinK  | 4/2/2010 5:00:56 PM

   I'm trying to figure out if some of the other new features that require the admin/designer client require a special license. For example, what type of license is required by a help desk user who needs the admin client to do ID Vault recoveries?

   It's hard to tell what some of those types of users should be buying. Or I'm not looking in the right places!

1. 32  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 4/4/2010 5:03:17 PM
   
   

   Most users need a Domino Enterprise CAL. Users of email only from Domino can use a Domino Messaging CAL. Personal use of Domino Designer, without a server connection, does not require any CAL.