• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Virtualization & FlexNet Publisher
 

Virtualization & FlexNet Publisher

on

  • 2,123 views

This document describes how FlexNet Publisher will enable the software producer to embrace virtualization by providing various means to enforce licensing on virtual machines. This paper describes ...

This document describes how FlexNet Publisher will enable the software producer to embrace virtualization by providing various means to enforce licensing on virtual machines. This paper describes approaches and technologies available today as well as those that are being considered in the future.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,123
Views on SlideShare
2,123
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
42
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Virtualization & FlexNet Publisher Virtualization & FlexNet Publisher Document Transcript

    • W H I T E PA P E R Virtualization & FlexNet Publisher
    • Virtualization & FlexNet Publisher Introduction Questions Software Producers Must Answer Almost all software licensing models eventually require Based upon two Flexera Software-hosted virtualization either one license or a pool of licenses to be bound to a summits, participating customers recognize their particular machine. While this was answered over the years organizations must answer some the following questions: for physical machines, some virtualization technologies are 1.  ave we defined a virtualization policy and has this H posing new challenges for software producers to enforce their policy been communicated to our customers? Can license agreements using traditional licensing models. we use the same policy as we do for the physical hardware environment? Various analyst white papers purport that server virtualization has moved past the early adopter stage to that of strategic 2.  ow many of our customers are using virtualization H virtualization. For example, Forrester reports the adoption of today? Is there a compliance problem and can it be server virtualization in enterprise IT will reach 65% by 2009 quantified? What virtual platforms are our customers with 45% of x86 servers virtualized.1 This means software using and in combination with what OS platforms? producers must develop and communicate licensing policies 3.  re there new markets available because of A that take into account their license server and applications virtualization (e.g., time rental via SaaS)? will run on virtual machines. It also means that FlexNet 4.  hat specific problem do we want to solve (e.g., W Publisher must provide the appropriate enforcement and Piracy, compliance, or both). Are we concerned with reporting tools to allow the software producer and their intentional vs. unintentional overuse? enterprise customers to confidently operate in this new virtual environment. 5.  hould pricing be based on physical or virtual S resources (sub-capacity pricing)? Flexera Software research indicates that most software 6.  hould alternate pricing models be defined to license S producers have not modified their license policies to deal in virtual environments? Should we charge more based with virtualization. Longer term it is recognized that new upon the additional virtualization test matrix involved? usage based ways to monetize software must be considered. Is there a market to charge less for limited capability? However, in the short term existing hardware centric licensing models must be applied to virtual platforms. The results of a limited virtualization survey conducted This document describes how FlexNet Publisher will enable during one of the aforementioned virtualization summits are the software producer to embrace virtualization by providing summarized below. various means to enforce licensing on virtual machines. This paper describes approaches and technologies available today as well as those that are being considered in the future. 1 A  s reported in the FORRESTER white paper entitled “x86 Virtualization Adopters Hit the Tipping Point,” November 30, 20072 Flexera Software: FlexNet Publisher White Paper Series
    • Virtualizat ion and FlexNet Publisher for Trusted Storage and Cert ificate-Based LicensesAs can be seen from these tables, most of the software producers surveyed indicate their organizations have not definedand communicated their virtualization policy. While most have not quantified a specific compliance problem aroundvirtualization, it is recognized the potential for overuse is there and must be solved. Finally, most customers intend toinitially apply traditional licensing and pricing models to virtual environments.Survey Results Question 1: Has your company defined and communicated your virtualization policy? % of Votes Yes 21% We are in process of creating a policy, but it is not complete. 21% We have not started on a virtualization policy. 42% I don’t know. 14% Question 2: Have you quantified a compliance problem around virtualization? % of Votes We have quantified a compliance problem and need to solve this problem. 20% We have not quantified a compliance problem, but we want the ability to enforce 60% our license policies in virtual environments. We don’t care about enforcing or monitoring compliance around virtualization. 6% I don’t have an opinion at this time. 13% Question 3: Have you defined new ways to monetize your software around % of Votes virtualization? No, we will use existing licensing and pricing models. 64% No, but we have started to discuss this. 14% Yes, we have defined new models to better match our software usage within virtual 7% environments. I don’t know. 14%Flexera Software: FlexNet Publisher White Paper Series 3
    • Virtualizat ion and FlexNet Publisher for Trusted Storage and Cert ificate-Based Licenses Types of Virtualization Technologies Remote Control The most commonly known virtualization technology is (Also known as KVM over IP) – One person can control the virtual machine technology. However, there are other types. host computer at any one time. The keyboard and mouse Here is a partial inventory of those types, the vendors who connected to the host computer and to each of the guest supply the technology, and a summary of the software computers can be active simultaneously and thus compete licensing issues. to be the source of input. Keystroke and mouse events from these different input sources can be interleaved. Also, the Virtual Machines video of each computer displays the same single desktop. With virtual machine technologies, each operating system Therefore, these solutions are not intended for multiple guest instance on a physical machine is made to believe it’s the computers to share the resources of the host computer at the only operating system running on that physical machine. same time. These technologies do this by virtualizing (abstracting) the machine’s hardware components, one virtual machine Remote control solutions do not represent a security instance per operating system instance. vulnerability to license management systems. The ability to remotely control a host computer does not enable a Application Virtualization / Application Isolation dishonest user to run more instances of licensed software With application isolation technologies, each application than they could already run if they were using the KVM instance running on an operating system instance is made attached to the host computer. Therefore, this document will to believe it’s the only application running on that operating not further discuss remote control technologies. system. These technologies do this by virtualizing the operating system’s file system (and registry on Windows), The remainder of the document will describe Flexera one virtual file system (and registry) instance per application Software’s approach to providing our software producer instance. Some application isolation technologies also customers the tools necessary to deal with licensing within isolate the operating system’s global namespace, so objects virtual machine (server virtualization) environments using like semaphores are not shared between application FlexNet Publisher. instances. All other operating system services are shared between isolated and non-isolated application instance. Terminal Services With terminal services, one terminal server machine supports multiple user sessions. Each user session encapsulates the desktop environment of one remotely logged-in user. Each user is made to believe they are the only user on that machine. Virtualization Technology Vendor/Products Software Licensing Issue? Virtual Machines VMware: Workstation, ESX; Affects licensing Microsoft: Hyper-V, Virtual PC/Server; Citrix: Xen Server, Desktop; Parallels: Desktop and Server (Mac), Server (Linux), Workstation (Windows and Linux); Sun: Zones; IBM pSeries: LPARs; HP: VPars, Integrity Application Virtualization Microsoft: App-V; Affects licensing VMware: ThinApp; Terminal Services Microsoft: Terminal Server; Affects licensing Citrix: Presentation Server; Sun: Secure Global Desktop Remote Control GoToMyPC, PCAnyWhere, VNC No affect on licensing Figure 1: Partial List of Virtualization Technologies4 Flexera Software: FlexNet Publisher White Paper Series
    • Virtualizat ion and FlexNet Publisher for Trusted Storage and Cert ificate-Based LicensesCompliance and Piracy Challenges of Virtualization challenges and approaches to mitigate this risk. OurSoftware producers’ licensing policies and approaches customers tell us that they want to apply traditional licenserange from compliance for trusted customers to enforcement models to virtual environments. This approach is importantfor markets that pose more risk of intentional overuse or in order to maintain backward compatibility with legacyoutright piracy. Traditional licensing models that bind the clients deployed at many end user locations.license server or application to the physical machine haveworked well over the years. As software producers know, The challenge for Flexera Software and FlexNet Publisherany software license can be exploited by a determined is there is no universal method to detect and interface withhacker. However, traditional license enforcement the multitude of virtualization platforms available today.technologies, design practices, and processes do a good To resolve this challenge, Flexera Software has engagedjob at keeping honest customers honest and to discourage in dialogs with multiple virtualization vendors to define athe casual exploiter. supported interface method between FlexNet Publisher and their platforms.Virtualization technologies have changed this landscapeby making it very easy to create multiple virtual machines Flexera Software has also developed a Virtualization APIon a single physical machine. While the advantages of specification in collaboration with several virtualizationmachine virtualization are obvious and enticing for the vendors. This standard will provide a uniform interfaceenterprise customer, this technology poses challenges for method that will allow FlexNet Publisher to more rapidlythe software producer using traditional license enforcement. support those virtualization platforms that adopt thisThis is because virtual machines can be configured to have standard. Other vendors have developed their ownthe same attributes (e.g., MAC address, port number, IP API’s and architectures to accomplish this interfaceaddress, etc.) that match an existing license file. While the (although with varying degrees of complexity, effectiveness,risk is low for widespread piracy of a licensed application, and overhead).there is potential high risk of the license server beingreplicated on many virtual machines making available many Flexera Software’s Approach to Virtualizationmore entitlements than were purchased. This situation is Flexera Software’s virtualization roadmap for FlexNetdepicted in Figure 2 below. Publisher enables the software producer to establish an enforcement strategy based upon the level of trust they have with their customers. The trust range is graphically shown License Server License Server Bound to Physical Bound to Virtual Figure 3 below. Hardware is Hardware is Hard to Replicate Easy to Replicate STRONG WEAK NONE Guest OS Operating System VM Hypervisor Guest OS Permission: Allow Permission: Allow Permission: Prohibit LICENSE SERVER Binding: VM Container Binding: Physical Binding: N/A Guest OS LICENSE SERVER Report: Log File Report: Log File Report: N/A Figure 3: Range of Trust between Software Producers and their Markets For markets or customers where no trust exists, the publisher can detect the presence of virtual machines and decide Guest Gues Gue t OS Guest O ue not to allow the license server to run or not to issue a Guest OS Guest OS st t LC LIC N LICENSE CEN Guest OS LC LIC N LICENSE CEN SERVER SE V ERV E SERVER SE V ERV E license to an application that is installed on a virtual LICENSE SERVER machine. Referring to the above diagram, permission to run on a virtual machine (VM) would be denied, therefore, no binding and reporting would come into play. ThisFigure 2: License Server Instances Bound to Physical or approach is perhaps the safest for the producer and may beVirtual Hardware justified for risky markets. However, the reality of enterpriseOver the past several years, Flexera Software has virtualization and the affect on customer satisfaction thatcollaborated with many software producer customers as may result must also be considered.well as virtualization vendors about license enforcementFlexera Software: FlexNet Publisher White Paper Series 5
    • Virtualizat ion and FlexNet Publisher for Trusted Storage and Cert ificate-Based Licenses For markets or customers where strong trust exists, the Care is taken such that false positives are not generated for publisher can first detect the presence of a virtual machine virtual machine detection, while at the same time ensuring and then bind the license server to the Universal Unique these techniques are not easily defeated. Once the software Identifier (UUID) of the VM container. Likewise, the license identifies that it is being run on a virtual machine, the file for an application can also be bound to the UUID of software producer can implement within their software an a particular VM container. While it is true that UUID’s can appropriate action based on a defined virtualization policy. be replicated and applied to additional virtual machines Some of the business policies that can be enforced include (either on the same or on different physical machines), the ability to: virtualization management software is almost always present (such as VMware’s vCenter) that will detect this condition 1.  efuse to start the license server in a virtual R and issue system errors until this situation is corrected. In environment. this scenario, permission to run on a VM is granted but VM 2.  efuse to enable a particular feature of the R container binding is also enforced to increase confidence application in a virtual environment. that license entitlements are not replicated on additional 3.  estrict a software feature to be functional only in a R virtual machines. With this approach, the end user of virtual environment. the license can take full advantage of the advanced VM functionalities like high-availability and fault tolerance, since The following segment describes some use cases where the the licenses can be moved from one physical machine to virtual machine detection capabilities can be useful and another without failure. The FlexNet Publisher report log the FlexNet Publisher syntax needed to implement the contains both virtual and physical platform data and license desired capability: checkout denial information. 1. oftware Producer A deploys only a served licensing S  For those markets and customers deemed to be in the model. They market low-volume, high-cost software middle of the trust range, the publisher can detect the and both casual and intentional piracy is a big presence of a virtual machine and then bind to a physical concern for them. They do not want their license hardware element (or combination of elements) of the host server to be deployed in a virtual machine due to the machine (e.g., MAC address). Included in binding is a ease with which this can lead to license over usage. mutex locking mechanism to ensure the license server is not They will instead require their customers to locate their copied and able to issue licenses from a second VM on the license server on a physical machine within the same hardware platform. In this scenario, permission to run data center. on a VM is granted but physical binding is also required to increase confidence that license entitlements are not •  his is implemented by the software publisher by T replicated. The report log will contain virtual and physical setting a compile time switch within the license platform data and license checkout denial information. server customization code. Specifically, within This approach is more secure than VM container binding, the file lsvendor.c the following variable setting but will not support use cases such as high-availability or is made and the license server is built: fail-over where the VM will move from one physical server to another. FLEX_VM_TYPE ls_allow_vm = PHYSICAL; /* Restrict VD to a physical m/c only */ The software producer must first answer some of the questions presented at the beginning of this paper to 2.  oftware producer B deploys both served and S quantify the problems they want to address and then unserved licensing models. Certain features of their determine the appropriate license enforcement response for application cannot run on virtual machines (e.g., the markets and customers they serve. they require connecting a measurement instrument using a USB port that is not supported on a virtual License Enforcement Using Virtual Machine Detection platform). They would like to disable these features on FlexNet Publisher offers license enforcement options based virtual machines while at the same time allowing the on virtual machine detection. This release incorporates a other product features to function on both virtual and number of published techniques to identify virtual machine physical platforms. platforms to allow the FlexNet Publisher vendor daemons and FLEX-enabled applications to identify if they are being •  his is implemented by the software publisher by T run on a virtual machine. While the techniques implemented using the license file keyword VM_PLATFORMS allow the detection of a number of different virtual machine on the FEATURE line as shown below: platforms, this release specifically supports the VMware ESX Server and Workstation products. FEATURE measure_voltage admld 2.5 01-jan-2012 4 VM_PLATFORMS=PHYSICAL SIGN=”00E3 ……”6 Flexera Software: FlexNet Publisher White Paper Series
    • Virtualizat ion and FlexNet Publisher for Trusted Storage and Cert ificate-Based Licenses 3.  oftware producer C deploys their software primarily S Over usage can still happen if multiple instances of a virtual using the unserved, node-locked license model. They machine, running on the same physical machine, are used are concerned about software piracy, particularly with to run the license server. To eliminate this condition, a their non-enterprise users and would like to restrict facility that will enforce a mutex lock is needed so only one their software to physical hardware. However, they instance of a license server (of one software producer) is do want to support certain trusted enterprise customers being run on a given physical machine. who want to use their software on virtual machine instances. In short, they want to control the ability of FlexNet Publisher v11.8 will provide both bare metal their software to function on a virtual machine (or not) binding and mutex locking. These two technologies are via the license file. depicted in the solutions shown in figure 4. • This is implemented by the software publisher by  This approach provides advantages to both the software using the license file keyword VM_PLATFORMS producer and their enterprise customers. The software on the FEATURE line as shown below and producer has reasonable assurance of a relatively secure granting these licenses on a case-by-case basis: licensing solution, while the license administrator can deploy the licensing solution in a data center with virtual FEATURE ultraplot admld 3.5 01-may-2011 4 machine installations. VM_PLATFORMS=VM_ONLY SIGN=”00E3 ……” The following segment describes some use cases whereLicense Enforcement Using Bare Metal Binding both virtual machine detection and bare metal bindingAs discussed earlier, binding the licenses to virtual machine capabilities can be combined using FlexNet Publisherhardware may lead to license over usage due to the ease features and syntax to implement more robust licensewith which the virtual hardware can be replicated. To enforcement capability:reduce the possibility of license over usage in markets whereweak trust exists, binding the licenses to physical hardware 1.  he example of Software Producer A deploying only Telements is recommended. In this method, the license server a served licensing model described in the License(or the client applications) running on virtual machines will Enforcement Using Virtual Machine Detection sectionbypass the virtual hardware and establish bindings with the above is expanded upon. Using the new capabilityhost system (or the bare metal). In this situation, even if the available in FlexNet Publisher the producer canvirtual machine in which the license server is running is later expand upon the virtualization detection implementedcopied, the bindings break rendering the license previously to include bare metal binding andserver inoperable. mutex detection for additional license enforcement capability, while not having to build different versionsWhile the bare metal binding solves the problem of a of the license server. This allows the producer tolicense being copied from one physical host to the next, it selectively relax their requirement of a license serverdoesn’t eliminate the possibility of over usage. only running on a physical machine on a case-by-case basis for increased customer satisfaction. Bare Metal Binding Bare Metal Binding wit h Mutex Lock Prevents •  his is implemented by the software producer by T Makes t he Licenses Mult iple Instances of t he using special hostid keywords on the SERVER Hard to Copy License Server on t he line in the license files introduced in FNP. These Same Physical Box hostid types specify: a) the platform type that the license server is authorized to run on, and b) the hostid type. Some examples are shown Guest OS Guest OS L LICENSE below: S SERVER VM Hypervisor •  xample 1: To restrict the license server to E Guest OS G Gu t O Guest OS VMware ESX server and to use the Ethernet address of the physical hardware, specify: Guest OS G t Guest OS SERVER this_host VMW_ETHER=1234 LICENSE LICENSE SERVER SERVER •  xample 2: To restrict the license server to a E physical machine and to use the IP address of the machine as the hostid type, specify:Figure 4: Solutions with Bare Metal Binding and Mutex Lock SERVER this_host PHY_INTERNET=10.10.12.101Flexera Software: FlexNet Publisher White Paper Series 7
    • Virtualizat ion and FlexNet Publisher for Trusted Storage and Cert ificate-Based Licenses License Enforcement Using the UUID Virtualization and Trusted Storage In situations where strong trust exists between software The FlexNet Publisher Trusted Storage solution presents its producers and their customers, it may be desirable to define own unique challenges related to license over usage in a a more flexible binding method that can be included within virtual environment. The affected functionalities are a licensing policy. FlexNet Publisher v11.8 will provide three-fold: the capability to bind the license server to the UUID of the • Anchoring virtual machine container. • Binding • Machine Identification Activation Transactions As previously stated, while it is recognized the UUID can be replicated and applied to additional virtual machines, These topics are discussed in a little more detail below. virtualization management software (that is almost always The Trusted Storage technology uses system anchors to present) ensures the UUID is unique on the network. identify if the trusted storage has been restored from a backup or overwritten. These are really links to one or more system identifiers that cross-check the integrity of the Trusted Storage file with the system. Different anchor types are used on different operating systems, with some anchors being much harder to spoof by a user than others. However, Virtualizat ion a Trusted Storage solution running on a virtual machine Management only has access to the virtual anchor types, which can be reverted back quite easily. This affects the trial anchors implemented by the Trusted Storage solution, with the result VM1 License VM4 License UUID=XYZ Server UUID=AAA Server that the trials can be retaken endlessly. The solution to this UUID= UUID UID UUID= problem would consist of storing the anchor information on XYZ XYZ the physical host of the virtual machine. VM2 License VM5 License UUID=ABC Server UUID=BBB Server The license rights that are held in Trusted Storage are locked UUID= UUID UUID= UUID to a system to prevent them from being transferred illegally XYZ Z XYZ Z to another system. This is referred to as binding and the system characteristics use for the binding are referred to VM3 Lic se License VM6 License as binding identities. The problem with virtual machines UUID=123 Server Serve erver ver e UUID=CCC Server erver UUID= UUID D= UUID= UUID with respect to binding is similar to that of License File XYZ YZ Z XYZ YZ Z based licensing – that the binding identities too easily duplicated when you copy a virtual machine. The solution ESX SERVER ESX SERVER to the problem is also the same – use the physical binding PHYSICAL MACHINE PHYSICAL MACHINE identities instead of the virtual ones. Figure 5: Binding to the UUID of the VM Container The Trusted Storage activation technology relies upon Allowing the enterprise customer to bind to the UUID of the uniquely identifying a machine (using UMN values) when virtual machine container will allow them to support the performing transactions with the activation server (such as license server and the flexibility to take advantage of other the FlexNet Operations). This is required so that in case advanced virtualization management capability (such as a of a repair or return transaction, the activation server high-availability configuration) providing greater flexibility can ensure that the same machine that has activated the and security to their operation. original license is involved in these transactions. With the virtualization technology, it is very easy to setup multiple • This is implemented by the software producer by  machines that look to be the same hence resulting in license using special hostid keywords on the SERVER over usage. The solution, once again, would rely upon using line in the license files introduced in FNP v11.8. physical elements for machine identification in combination For example, To restrict the license server to with virtual machine identities. VMware ESX and to use the UUID of the virtual machine instance, specify: Entitlement and Compliance Management License enforcement in virtualization environments is SERVER this_host VMW_UUID=1234… only one component of an end-to-end entitlement and compliance management (ECM) solution.8 Flexera Software: FlexNet Publisher White Paper Series
    • Virtualizat ion and FlexNet Publisher for Trusted Storage and Cert ificate-Based LicensesIn addition to the concerns and approaches presented to software runs on a virtual machine. For example, one newaddress license over usage, there are other considerations capability available in VMware’s vSphere 4.0 hypervisorrelated to license life cycle activities that may have a and management toolset is the ability to dynamicallybearing on a software producer’s virtualization policies. allocate virtual CPUs (vCPUs). This capability will furtherFor example, a software producer may want to gather play havoc with CPU based licensing.data on how many of their products are being used onphysical machines vs. virtual machines. Such data would Research by software industry analysts substantiate thebe invaluable to better understand markets and specific industry trend away from hardware based licensingcustomers so these usage patterns can be evaluated as models toward usage based models such as subscriptionnew licensing models are considered for virtualization and SaaS.2 As has been presented in this paper, thedeployments. This information would also help the software fundamental byproduct of virtualization technology serves toproducer ensure their support staff is appropriately trained remove the time-honored hardware hooks and metrics thatto handle real-world customer deployments. producers have depended upon to secure and monetize their software.Gathering of such data can be easily achieved if the licenseactivation server (such as FlexNet Operations) actively logs FlexNet Publisher will provide the tools necessary for ourthe platform type on which the license rights are requested. customers to embrace server virtualization that is now soSimilar logging of the platform data can be done on the prevalent in the enterprise.license user side via the report log files generated by theFlexNet Publisher license servers. These report log files can About FlexNet Publisherthen be analyzed using FlexNet Manager to extract the Part of Flexera Software’s Entitlement and Compliancevirtual platform related statistics. Management Solution, FlexNet Publisher enables software producers and high-tech manufacturers to increase revenuesOther Possibilities and simplify customer relationships.Advanced product offerings from the virtualization vendorsopen up many possibilities to ensure the reliability of a The flexible, yet robust licensing capabilities providedlicense server. For example, the High Availability/Fault by FlexNet Publisher allow producers and high-techTolerance features offered by virtualization vendors can manufacturers to address piracy and ensure protectionensure the license server will never need to be shut down. of intellectual property, as well as to react quickly andIn fact with appropriate usage, the need for three server efficiently to new and evolving markets through creation ofredundancy solutions may also be obviated. new pricing models and versatile product configurations.Best Practices for the Software Producer FlexNet Publisher is the industry leader, with over 20Flexera Software recommends the software producer start years of experience, a proven track record, more thanwith a more restrictive approach to their policy of allowing 3,000 thousand customers and over 20,000 FLEX enabledthe license server to run in virtual environments and then applications to date. FlexNet was awarded the “Industry bestlater relax the policy on a case-by-case basis. Starting with software product for software producers” in 2007 by SIIA.FlexNet Publisher v11.7, the license server can be restrictedto a physical machine only without needing a change in the About Flexera Softwarelicense file. Then, with FlexNet Publisher v11.8, the new Flexera Software is the leading provider of strategiclicense file syntax can be utilized along with a new license solutions for Application Usage Management; solutionsserver. The new license file syntax can be released to the delivering continuous compliance, optimized usage andcustomers at the time of license renewals so as to cause maximized value to application producers and theirleast disruption to the services. customers. Flexera Software is trusted by more than 80,000 customers that depend on our comprehensive solutions -Caution: If the license server is built and deployed to run from installation and licensing, entitlement and complianceon virtual machines, this exposure cannot be retracted. It is, management to application readiness and software licensetherefore, suggested to use the approach discussed in optimization - to strategically manage application usagethis section. and achieve breakthrough results realized only through the systems-level approach we provide. For more information,Conclusion/Summary please go to: www.flexerasoftware.comAs mentioned at the beginning of this paper, most softwareproducers will initially apply traditional licensing models to For more information on FlexNet Publisher andvirtual environments. Longer term, most also recognize the FlexNet Suite, please visit:challenges placed upon these traditional models when their www.flexerasoftware.com/fnp 2 As reported in IDC’s Briefing “Going Hybrid with SaaS - Managing Perpetual and Subscription Businesses in the Same Chassis” on June 17th, 2009 with Amy Konary. Flexera Software: FlexNet Publisher White Paper Series 9
    • Flexera Software LLC Schaumburg United Kingdom (Europe, Australia (Asia, For more office locations visit:1000 East Woodfield Road, (Global Headquarters): Middle East Headquarters): Pacific Headquarters): www.flexerasoftware.comSuite 400 +1 800-809-5659 +44 870-871-1111 +61 3-9895-2000Schaumburg, IL 60173 USA +44 870-873-6300Copyright © 2012 Flexera Software LLC. All other brand and product names mentioned herein may be the trademarks and registered trademarks of their respective owners. FNP_WP_Virtualization2_Sept12