More detailed interpretation of RMC licensing policy found below. This interpretation is not a legal document and was not created so to try and find a loophole to exploit; it was created to enable an open conversation between Rational and its customers regarding how they are licensed and how they can get most value from their investment in RMC. We’ve reviewed and discussed this policy with many customers – and will be happy to do so again. It’s the policy most fair to both Rational and the customer as it is relatively easy to audit and interpret. We appreciate that this licensing policy may not scale appropriately for many hundreds of users (e.g. 500+) and that the RMC product manager may need to be involved in those situations. (He is happy to do so!) That said… Every person using the Rational Method Composer (RMC) tooling requires a “Rational Method Composer” license. Content published from RMC that includes IBM content such as all or part of the Rational Unified Process (RUP), IBM Practices, the IBM Tivoli Unified Process (ITUP), or any of the plug-ins that ship with the product or are made available via IBM developerWorks or other mechanisms for download require a “Rational Method Composer Content Reader” license. Who needs to be licensed? Typically we interpret licensing requirements as: Every team member of any project executing the process -- since all team members directly or indirectly are exposed to the process, its templates, derivative works such as project plans and/or RTC Work Item templates, etc. Any process subject matter experts, etc. referencing the process in order to customize Clarifications of policy: Extended members of a project team are typically not required to be licensed -- people who perform only "informed" or "consulted" roles IBM appreciates that the process may be made available to users via the corporate intranet or other means. This may make the process accessible to those that are not licensed (or authorized) for use. Licenses will not be required for those users if: (1) reasonable effort is made to communicate that the published process requires a license and who to contact within your company for any related questions regarding licensing; (2) some reasonable governance of this is made. Clarification of “RMC / Homegrown Blend” as per above: Typically any blend of content still requires all project team members to be licensed. That the content is, say, out-of-the-box RUP, RUP with 10% customer material, or a mix of RUP and customers material co-mingled is immaterial. Rational created the RMC tooling as it is expected that customers will want to customize and RMC content is licensed and priced with that in mind, buffet style – “all you can eat” for the same price. If that is the case why does it depend upon the usage model as noted? Because there are exceptions that make sense and we didn’t want to paint with too broad a brush. To exemplify: A customer wants to deploy a (customized) RUP process as well as a 100% homegrown waterfall process using RMC. Rational would only require that users of the RUP content be licensed assuming projects using only homegrown content use no RUP tasks, roles, work products, templates, checklists, etc. and that RUP isn’t being cross-referenced by the homegrown waterfall process! A customer is using (customized) IBM Practices and the customer also creates some of their own practices using only their own content. Interpreting this can be muddled for a variety of reasons, but its probably clearest to say that if a project team member is not using any of the IBM Practices they don’t need to be licensed. (Why “probably clearest”? What if to understand the customer’s practice every user would have to reference and understand the IBM Practice that provides the associated input work products?!? Shades of grey.) Hopefully the above gives clarity. When in doubt reach out to the RMC Product Manager for clarification. FAQs So why is the content licensed this way? Why isn’t the RMC Content Reader license enforced via FlexLM? How else can you reasonably license intellectual capital? Content can be viewed via the published web site, via PDF, by using the templates, by using printouts of tool mentors, through derivations of the process (e.g. project plans, evolved templates), etc. There is no reasonable way to use FlexLM or any other kind of mechanized license manager to manage “when someone is using the process.” Moreover, if a company’s auditor asked are you following a process you’d say “yes”, not “only when I need to look at the documentation for it” – so in that essence this is not unreasonable. In this internet-based world there is the misperception that “content is and should be free”. Why isn’t RMC content “free” also? IBM invests much in authoring, editing, and translating its content. Moreover, it does so with respect to existing copyrights and has underwent a comprehensive legal review to this effect. (Has a customer’s homegrown process vetted their process the same way?!?) Trust us, we aren’t getting rich doing this and reselling it. Even rewriting a subset of the content from scratch typically has a greater loaded cost for customers as well. When you purchase an iPod you still have to pay for the music. Having purchased the iPod does not mean the music should be free. There are engineers that created the iPod and artists who created the music. Each deserve payment for their efforts and for the value they provide. The same is true with RMC tooling and content: we have developers who create RMC tooling and process experts authoring content. Both groups provide value and receive a paycheck. (And we don’t provide content a la carte as per the iPod as that is a governance/compliance nightmare!) IBM donated a portion of RUP to the Eclipse Process Framework (www.eclipse.org/epf) and are major committers to this open source effort. So there is a "free" RUP-like process there... but it lacks the meat on the bone that RUP provides. (Ditto for the IBM Practices.) IBM/Rational continues to invest in its commercial process content that is packaged with RMC because we find enough customers who have found the value in purchasing it. We're constantly exploring ways to increase the value of what we provide. For example, RMC has capabilities for exporting RMC content into RTC and we’re looking to do more and more with enactment on Jazz in that regard as noted at RSC in 2009 and years past. Do we still have to pay a license fee if we create a “RUP-like” process? What if we copy and paste parts of your published content in to ours and don’t use your libraries? To exemplify with something other than RUP... Why did Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books have royalties paid for the movie rights? Why do movies that are only "based on" books or short stories have to compensate those authors? Because regardless of format (paper, web site, etc.) someone owns the copyright for the original work and derivative works of that effort require licensing. Does every movie that has a wizard need to pay Tolkien's estate? No. But there is some point where Tolkien-like becomes substantially Tolkien and require royalty/licensing -- even if things like wizards are "in the public domain.“ Whether its RUP in RMC or RUP from a book (or any other of our content in any other form) its still under copyright – copy-and-pasting or retyping it into the RMC tooling doesn’t change that fact. This is not said to start a huge debate or argument about where black becomes grey and grey becomes white with copyright law in general or for RUP (or the rest of our content). Admittedly, there are various portions that is in the public domain or open source (often because IBM donated them!), the property of various authors, etc. so there certainly is grey. Rather, this topic is noted because we can’t give an answer about what your legal department / lawyers (or even your own moral compass) says where copyright of IBM content begins and ends... so there is no definitive answer to asking about a RUP-like process not requiring licensing. (How "RUP-like"?!?
All of these products can be used to implement MDSD. The three main products we will focus on in this deck are DOORS, RTC and Rhapsody.
File Name Here.ppt File Name Here.ppt File Name Here.ppt