Possible new licensing model (SageTV Client).

[spandox]

I live alone. I have: my bedroom computer (SageTV), a TV (with a computer attached), a basement computer next to my bike trainer and treadmill, and a office computer.

At any one time I can only watch SageTV on ONE of them at a time (physically). Right now I have the SageTV on my bedroom machine (bought and paid for). I would love to have the client on my other computers.....But at $30 a pop it is a little expensive ($90). I would like to have a more flexible licensing model where, for instance, I buy one additional lenience Of SageTV client and the system only lets me use that one computer at a time. This way, as long as I remember to shut down the client in the basement trainer computer, I can watch it on my main TV, etc.

Are there any plans for a "per seat" licensing model?

[Opus4]

Originally Posted by spandox

Are there any plans for a "per seat" licensing model?

This gets been brought up every so often, but Frey has never said they are planning to make such a change. I suppose that doesn't mean that they _aren't_ planning to do so, but I don't believe they have ever indicated that it is a likely change.

- Andy

[mdmint]

The PIA workaround is to install SageClient on all desired PCs using one license. The first Client instance to connect to SageTV will work and continuing working. If you then want to use Sage Client on one of your other PCs you need to make sure working Client is not running, stop and restart SageTV, now whichever Client PC connects first will be the only Client able to access SageTV until you again stop and restart SageTV.

[korben_dallas]

With the proper process permissions, I believe this could be automated into a batch file for each client PC. The batch file would kill the SageTV Client on all other client PC's, kill the SageTV service and/or UI on the server, then restart the server SageTV, then start the SageTV Client on the client PC. It might take 2 minutes to do all of that, but it would be faster than a reboot of the server and would ensure all the other SageTV Client's were closed.

[Opus4]

Originally Posted by mdmint

The PIA workaround is to install SageClient on all desired PCs using one license.

The reality is that this violates the current license agreement that was agreed to when the product was installed. There is a license agreement txt file in the SageTV dir (EULA) that essentially says the license is for installing the software on one PC.

- Andy

[mdmint]

Originally Posted by Opus4

The reality is that this violates the current license agreement that was agreed to when the product was installed. There is a license agreement txt file in the SageTV dir (EULA) that essentially says the license is for installing the software on one PC.

- Andy

Does it? Technically I guess it does. But I honestly don't believe it violates the intention or spirit of the current license agreement or the actual way the current license is implemented. It can only be used by one PC per Client License at a time. Of course, could take the batch file concept further to include automatic install de-install each time a Client connects disconnects which is 100% within the Letter of the Law...

A clear violation would be "sharing" a license with someone else.

(edit) That said, we have one TV in our house with a HTPC and SageClient. I own 3 SageClient licenses because Debi occasionally wants to be able to schedule a program while at her PC and same for my PC. "TV" is never watched on either! So I paid $60 simply because the current license scheme only allows to even schedule a recording from a licensed SageTV or SageClient and the work around was indeed a PIA. Though since then the user created Web Access (not Frey created) has been developed so I wouldn't have had to spend the $60 today.

[heffe2001]

I posted something similar to this a while back, but as yet haven't heard anything about it. I currently own I think 4 client licenses (I'd have to check my list to be sure, although I'm only using really 2 right now), but if we had per-seat licensing, I'd only need 2. I don't mind the extra expense really, as every penny we spend on their software helps with future development, but it would be nice if it were per-seat, server controlled.

[mitchgibbs]

If they embraced a concurrent licensing model, it wouldn't likely save most of us any money. When companies choose a per-seat instead of a concurrent model, they generally then price the seats cheaper than a concurrent license would run. If they went concurrent, they'd probably need to run the price up of that to $100 to maintain their revenue stream.

As far as complying with the "spirit" of the license agreement, I'm generally in favor of that. However, the "spirit" of this agreement is that of a per-seat license.

Mitch