Main Nav

Message from tbailey@adobe.com

All,

 

It appears that there is some confusion regarding the concurrent licensing policies from Adobe. I would encourage everyone to go to the URL below to look at the language surrounding concurrent licensing.

 

http://www.adobe.com/volume-licensing/policies.html#concurrency-policy

 

If an institution is operating under the policy as outlined, they are allowed to serve licenses up to multiple student labs and classrooms physically located within the campus. It is important to note, however, that the policy states that the computers accessing the software must be owned and/or leased by the institution.

 

Best Regards,

Trevor Bailey

Director of Education

Adobe Systems

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Comments

Ø  If an institution is operating under the policy as outlined, they are allowed to serve licenses up to multiple student labs and classrooms physically located within the campus. It is important to note, however, that the policy states that the computers accessing the software must be owned and/or leased by the institution. (emphasis added)

 

I don’t have a dog in this particular fight with Adobe, although licensing issues in general in a virtual desktop and virtual app world are a huge concern of mine. Certainly, it is highly advantageous to be able to serve out virtual desktops and virtual apps to  students on their home computers. We are a non-residential campus, so I’m pretty literal in my use of the word “home”. I suppose the definition of “home” would need to be extended to various types of residential halls and institutionally owned apartments for residential campuses. But it occurs to me that the requirement for computers accessing the software to be owned and/or leased by the institution is also a huge problem for campuses that have basically eliminated computer labs in lieu of student owned laptops. And beyond that, there is the BYOD revolution with mobile devices. So it’s hard for me to see how the restriction to devices owned and/or leased by the institution can long stand. Vendors will either have to change, or else we will have to quit doing business with them.

 

Jerry

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Bryan • Vice President of Information Services • Pellissippi State • 10915 Hardin Valley Road • P.O. Box 22990 • Knoxville, TN 37933-0990

Voice: 865 539-7127 •  Fax: 865 539-7653 •  E-mail: jbryan@pstcc.edu

 

 

 

 

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Trevor, 

Thanks for jumping in here. I believe part of the confusion is that we're hearing different things when we talk to Adobe. The licensing policies state: "If you have questions about whether your intended use of the Software would comply with a Concurrent Use License, contact your Adobe sales representative."

When we do so, it seems we're not getting the same answers. Additionally, I'm now worried that I'm receiving contradictory responses from Adobe Licensing & Compliance as well. The link you just sent us states the one of the prohibited scenarios would be: "Access or use of the Software for administrative use", yet Recently on April 18th, I emailed Adobe Licensing & Compliance and asked this question: "I'm also curious, 5.2 seems to note that concurrent licenses can be used for both lab and administrative use. Is that accurate?"

The response I received was "Yes."

My understanding now is that Adobe recently clarified (changed… I would call it) these policies. Perhaps some of us are operating under CLP Agreements that do not match what is on your website? Or were not aware that the policy on the website changed earlier this year? If an institution has a CLP agreement of some sort, which I thought was required to purchase concurrent licenses, it seems that we should follow our written agreement not the website policy when the two differ, correct? 

To give Adobe the benefit of the doubt here, I don't believe our sales representatives are intentionally misrepresenting proper license usage. It feels to me more like these policies change at will, schools may be working off varying documentation, and the potential confusion you mentioned regarding the concurrent licensing policies from Adobe extends beyond our institutions and far into Adobe as well.

Evan Levine
Manager, IT
Software License & Lab Engineering
Duke University Office of Information Technology
elevine@duke.edu
919-599-5644


We're a (partially) residential campus, but for the past 10+ years have been encouraging student ownership of computers, and have reached pretty close to 100% student ownership. (Not quite 100% because, e.g. some students live at home, use their family's computer and so say that they don't own a computer.)  Add in mobile devices (hey, I just got my first good one!) and Jerry's point becomes extremely important for us.

--henry

Ø  ”Vendors will either have to change, or else we will have to quit doing business with them.”

 

Agreed, wholeheartedly.  Many people I have spoken with seem to believe that the best way forward with vendors, especially large vendors like Adobe, is to pursue discussions and negotiations based on expressing our needs, and expecting the vendors to respond to them.  I personally believe that this is a good way to start negotiating with vendors, particularly those who demonstrate good faith efforts upfront to attract and retain our business by listening to and responding to our needs in a reasonable fashion.

 

However, many large vendors (like Adobe and IBM, IMHO) act far more like bullies than like partners, expecting an ever increasing tithe to them for the right to use their products regardless of institutional needs.  I believe that our best way forward with vendors like this is to give them an opportunity to meet our needs at our price points, and if they fail to do so, we will favor other vendors who do, and we will (out of unfortunate economic necessity) limit access to their products to a small number of client devices physically located in selected spaces on the campus.  Our users lose much accessibility to their products this way, but the vendors lose market share and eyeballs, as well as exposure to/experience with their products by our students, who will take the experiences we provide them with to the workplace.

 

Although many of our students do need access to Photoshop or Premiere Pro, the vast majority of our students need to simply edit photos or video, and are willing to use whatever tool we can make as accessible to them as easily and inexpensively as possible and on as many devices in as many places as possible (your mileage may vary, depending on your program requirements).  I don’t believe that most institutions will find in hindsight that the benefit of providing access to specific vendors’ desktop software products as an institutionally strategic differentiator between them and others is worth the cost of the other opportunities that those dollars could have otherwise funded, when those costs are exorbitant and the use restrictions are onerous.

 

- Rick

 

.- / -.-. .-.. ..- . / ..-. --- .-. / -.-- --- ..- / .- .-.. .-..

Rick Engelhardt    http://staff.buffalostate.edu/engelhrb/

- .... . / .-- .- .-.. .-. ..- ... / .-- .- ... / .--. .- ..- .-..

 

Ø  ”Vendors will either have to change, or else we will have to quit doing business with them.”

 

 

Amen. 

 

I believe that a lot of vendors' apparent non-responsiveness is because they are attempting to apply their corporate licensing policies to academic licensing issues.

 

I have talked with assorted "nonresponsive" major vendors until I am blue in the face about the ways in which licensing policies for corporate employees just don't translate into reasonable Higher Ed licensing policies by changing the word "employee" to the word "student" and pretending it is an Academic Agreement.

 

I don't believe that "some" large software companies actually care that much about their academic licensing markets, and they aren't putting much time and effort into determining what they need to do to serve that market. 

 

We need to do business with companies that actually *want* to do business with us, not with companies that don't really give a ____________  whether they are meeting our needs or not.  (MHO - possibly not that of my employer).

Ruth Ginzberg, CISSP, CTPS
Sr. I.T. Procurement Specialist
University of Wisconsin System

rginzberg@uwsa.edu
608-890-3961


I agree with the sentiment expressed here, but my reality is that software in the labs at our institution is specified by faculty and they are often reluctant to switch to something else.  Especially if cost is the only reason given.  Also for many of these products there really is no viable alternative. 

 

John Twigg

Manager, Field Technology

Regis University

Denver, CO

jtwigg@regis.edu

 

 

John brings up two excellent points below.  Faculty at our institution do specify certain software in certain cases, and I do not endorse telling them what they should or shouldn’t have.  And, it is certainly true that some products do not have a viable alternative.

 

My main point isn’t whether or not we should eliminate that software.  My main point is that we shouldn’t be looking to massify access to that software to the detriment of other more institutionally strategic spending.  I believe that those academic programs which require Adobe Photoshop and/or Premiere Pro in their labs should have it, as long as the institution is willing to fund it.  But that’s a lot different than paying a yearly toll based on FTE so that everyone can have access to it, just so we can say “we can virtualize Adobe software in our BYOD environment”; I see that less as a strategic differentiator (in most cases) than as bragging rights purchased at a high cost.

 

If Adobe won’t let us virtualize Photoshop, we’ll make it available in those labs where the academic programs require it, and we’ll virtualize GIMP or Paint.NET instead.  When faculty develop online classes and want a lab component to go along with it, they simply won’t be able to include Adobe software with it unless they require students to buy their own copies and install it on their personally-owned devices.   The choice is up to the vendor.

 

As more coursework goes online, and as student expects more and more of their software to be available virtually, those vendors who allow themselves to be part of the solution without exorbitant increases in our yearly spend, or onerous usage restrictions, will see their products prominently featured in our environments – and those who don’t won’t.  Our virtual BYOD environments are our storefronts – and those storefronts have value to vendors – they will increasingly want space on our shelves, and they ignore it at their peril.

 

I see this whole process as a form of technological Darwinism.  Those vendors who adapt best to the changing ecosystem will be rewarded, and those who don’t will “go the way of the dinosaurs”.  IMHO, Adobe is acting rather reptilian at the moment – and what we need from them is behavior that’s a little more warm-blooded.  J

 

- Rick

 

.- / -.-. .-.. ..- . / ..-. --- .-. / -.-- --- ..- / .- .-.. .-..

Rick Engelhardt    http://staff.buffalostate.edu/engelhrb/

- .... . / .-- .- .-.. .-. ..- ... / .-- .- ... / .--. .- ..- .-..

 

And the vendors know this.  Of course if they're too greedy/evil/stupid, they should also know we'll dump them at the first opportunity. Anyone still use Quark XPress?  Apple's about to lose their Pro video market over FinalCut Pro X. How much love does anyone have for AutoDesk, IBM/SPSS.

People don't necessarily love Microsoft, but few people in higher ed would say Campus Agreement has been a bad value. 

I think we should create a higher ed software licensing rubric and grade our vendors. Each year we'd announce our list of the best and worst and most improved vendors, with great fanfare. 

Maybe that's get their attention. 
Michael Sherer
Goshen College

Sent from my iPhone

Think that clears things up.  I didn't know however the concurrent license were only for labs and classrooms, and disallowed administrative use?

Darrell Lutey
Assistant Director, 702-895-0763
Office of Information Technology, UNLV
CBC B129 / Mail Stop 7040
http://oit.unlv.edu  |  Twitter@unlv_oit
IT Help Desk: 702-895-0777




From:        Trevor Bailey <tbailey@ADOBE.COM>
To:        LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Date:        05/31/2012 10:43 PM
Subject:        [LICENSING] Clarification on Concurrency
Sent by:        The EDUCAUSE Software Licensing Issues Constituent Group Listserv <LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>



All,
 
It appears that there is some confusion regarding the concurrent licensing policies from Adobe. I would encourage everyone to go to the URL below to look at the language surrounding concurrent licensing.
 
http://www.adobe.com/volume-licensing/policies.html#concurrency-policy
 
If an institution is operating under the policy as outlined, they are allowed to serve licenses up to multiple student labs and classrooms physically located within the campus. It is important to note, however, that the policy states that the computers accessing the software must be owned and/or leased by the institution.
 
Best Regards,
Trevor Bailey
Director of Education
Adobe Systems

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Darrell, 

We were taken by surprise on that as well. I think it's part of the recent "Clarification" from Adobe, involving changing of the wording. 

- Evan


Message from michael.cooper@mail.wvu.edu

Paragraph 5.3 of the Academic CLP agreement below states that if you installed the concurrent license under old terms that included "administration" and did not upgrade the old terms apply.

Administration is included in the CLP T&C's on page 14 at  

 
 

5.3 Concurrent Use Licenses. Members may order Concurrent Use Licenses under the Education CLP solely for use on Member owned or leased computers that are physically located at an on-campus classroom or student lab facility. Concurrent Use Licenses are subject to additional fees, and Member must use and maintain adequate verification systems to manage the Concurrent Use Licenses. The terms and conditions set forth at www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/volumelicensing/policies ("Concurrent Use License Terms") shall apply to Concurrent Use Licenses and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. Adobe may update the Concurrent Use License Terms from time to time, but the version of the Concurrent Use License Terms published at the time of your installation of Concurrent Use License Software (or upgrade thereto) shall govern your use of such Software.

 
 
Michael Cooper
West Virginia University
Technology Support Center
P.O. Box 6357
Morgantown, WV 26506
E-mail: MHCooper@mail.wvu.edu
Phone: 304-293-0777
Fax: 304-293-4688
CellPhone: 304-216-4869

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"The challenge for every organization is to build a feeling of
oneness, of dependence on one another...because the
question is usually not how well each person works,
but how they work together."
                        --Vince Lombardi
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by
legal privilege.  If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this e-mail or any
attachment is prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify me immediately by returning it to me and delete this copy
from your system.  Thank you.


>>>
From: Evan Levine <elevine@DUKE.EDU>
To: <LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Date: 6/1/12 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [LICENSING] Clarification on Concurrency
Darrell, 

We were taken by surprise on that as well. I think it's part of the recent "Clarification" from Adobe, involving changing of the wording. 

- Evan


Message from tbailey@adobe.com

All,

 

Thank you all for the comments and feedback here. These are tough issues, and we’re committed to understanding and addressing as best as possible. Therefore, we are launching a new process to solicit your feedback and share the outcomes.  Starting today, if you are interested in sending feedback directly to Adobe, please send it to Amy Redell at amyr@adobe.com. She will compile the information, and will probably reach out to a few individuals and ask for their assistance on an advisory board that can help us address the broader concerns of this group. If you are willing to participate in such a board, please make that known in your email.

 

In the interim, I did want to provide additional context and background here.   The Adobe concurrent use policy was recently updated November 2011 as there was a good deal of confusion on what was deemed as concurrent usage. The policy was updated on November 15th 2011. All CLP licensing agreements signed after that date are under the new policy. CLP agreements signed prior to that date are not subject to the policy but the renewal of these agreements will be subject to the policy. This might be why different institutions are getting different answers from their Adobe sales representatives.  It’s further important to note that  concurrency is only one program within the licensing structure at Adobe. We have many other programs that address the concerns and comments that have been raised.

 

Thank you again for sharing concerns and feedback on how we can improve programs to meet your needs.

 

Best Regards,

Trevor Bailey

Director of Education

Adobe Systems

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Software Licensing Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Evan Levine
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 10:18 AM
To: LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [LICENSING] Clarification on Concurrency

 

Darrell, 

 

We were taken by surprise on that as well. I think it's part of the recent "Clarification" from Adobe, involving changing of the wording. 

 

- Evan

 

 

Hi Trevor,

Based on the comments on this list, conversations with members the EDUCAUSE software licensing constituent group, as well as conversations across my home state of Virginia, licensing of Adobe products is a serious concern.

As such, might I encourage a more open and transparent process than what is described below? 

In higher education, we are a community that shares knowledge.  Rather than a feedback activity, I suggest an engagement process.  Such a process allows an understanding of the complexity of our concern.  Such a process more likely leads to licensing outcomes required to meet needs in diverse sectors of higher education.  The creation of a wiki or blog or some other open community forum that allows the IT in higher education community to share comments would be preferred.  I believe that you would receive very valuable and much better feedback from an engaged community than if comments are sent to and compiled by Our community is largw and I am not completely sure how a few individuals (all due respect to some very fabulous potential representatives) would be able to represent the breadth of the issues that are faced. I am hopeful that positive, mutually-beneficial licensing models can be developed as a result of a more engaged process.  I ask my colleagues if they feel the same. 

All best,
Sharon

At 06:06 PM 6/1/2012, Trevor Bailey wrote:
All,
 
Thank you all for the comments and feedback here. These are tough issues, and we’re committed to understanding and addressing as best as possible. Therefore, we are launching a new process to solicit your feedback and share the outcomes.  Starting today, if you are interested in sending feedback directly to Adobe, please send it to Amy Redell at amyr@adobe.com. She will compile the information, and will probably reach out to a few individuals and ask for their assistance on an advisory board that can help us address the broader concerns of this group. If you are willing to participate in such a board, please make that known in your email.
 
In the interim, I did want to provide additional context and background here.   The Adobe concurrent use policy was recently updated November 2011 as there was a good deal of confusion on what was deemed as concurrent usage. The policy was updated on November 15th 2011. All CLP licensing agreements signed after that date are under the new policy. CLP agreements signed prior to that date are not subject to the policy but the renewal of these agreements will be subject to the policy. This might be why different institutions are getting different answers from their Adobe sales representatives.  It’s further important to note that  concurrency is only one program within the licensing structure at Adobe. We have many other programs that address the concerns and comments that have been raised.
 
Thank you again for sharing concerns and feedback on how we can improve programs to meet your needs.
 
Best Regards,
Trevor Bailey
Director of Education
Adobe Systems
 
From: The EDUCAUSE Software Licensing Issues Constituent Group Listserv [ mailto:LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Evan Levine
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 10:18 AM
To: LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [LICENSING] Clarification on Concurrency
 
Darrell,
 
We were taken by surprise on that as well. I think it's part of the recent "Clarification" from Adobe, involving changing of the wording.
 
- Evan
 
 
Message from shafiear@ucmail.uc.edu

Hi Sharon,

 

I totally agree with you. I am also impressed and very appreciative that Adobe wants to listen.   Similar to your situation, we in Ohio have these conversations across the state through a formal vehicle called the Software Licensing Coordinating Committee that includes the 14 public universities in the Inter-University Council of Ohio (IUC) and that reports to the CIOs of these 14 universities.   

 

Speaking only for my University, we would welcome and prefer the open community forum idea.

 

Regards and thanks for this excellent suggestion.

 

Amin Shafie – Assistant Director

Software Licensing & Business Relations

University of Cincinnati Information Technologies (UCIT)

513-556-9001

Amin.Shafie@UC.Edu

 

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Software Licensing Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Sharon P. Pitt
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:21 AM
To: LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [LICENSING] Clarification on Concurrency

 

Hi Trevor,

Based on the comments on this list, conversations with members the EDUCAUSE software licensing constituent group, as well as conversations across my home state of Virginia, licensing of Adobe products is a serious concern.

As such, might I encourage a more open and transparent process than what is described below? 

In higher education, we are a community that shares knowledge.  Rather than a feedback activity, I suggest an engagement process.  Such a process allows an understanding of the complexity of our concern.  Such a process more likely leads to licensing outcomes required to meet needs in diverse sectors of higher education.  The creation of a wiki or blog or some other open community forum that allows the IT in higher education community to share comments would be preferred.  I believe that you would receive very valuable and much better feedback from an engaged community than if comments are sent to and compiled by Our community is largw and I am not completely sure how a few individuals (all due respect to some very fabulous potential representatives) would be able to represent the breadth of the issues that are faced. I am hopeful that positive, mutually-beneficial licensing models can be developed as a result of a more engaged process.  I ask my colleagues if they feel the same. 

All best,
Sharon

At 06:06 PM 6/1/2012, Trevor Bailey wrote:

All,
 
Thank you all for the comments and feedback here. These are tough issues, and we’re committed to understanding and addressing as best as possible. Therefore, we are launching a new process to solicit your feedback and share the outcomes.  Starting today, if you are interested in sending feedback directly to Adobe, please send it to Amy Redell at amyr@adobe.com. She will compile the information, and will probably reach out to a few individuals and ask for their assistance on an advisory board that can help us address the broader concerns of this group. If you are willing to participate in such a board, please make that known in your email.
 
In the interim, I did want to provide additional context and background here.   The Adobe concurrent use policy was recently updated November 2011 as there was a good deal of confusion on what was deemed as concurrent usage. The policy was updated on November 15th 2011. All CLP licensing agreements signed after that date are under the new policy. CLP agreements signed prior to that date are not subject to the policy but the renewal of these agreements will be subject to the policy. This might be why different institutions are getting different answers from their Adobe sales representatives.  It’s further important to note that  concurrency is only one program within the licensing structure at Adobe. We have many other programs that address the concerns and comments that have been raised.
 
Thank you again for sharing concerns and feedback on how we can improve programs to meet your needs.
 
Best Regards,
Trevor Bailey
Director of Education
Adobe Systems
 
From: The EDUCAUSE Software Licensing Issues Constituent Group Listserv [ mailto:LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Evan Levine
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 10:18 AM
To: LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [LICENSING] Clarification on Concurrency
 
Darrell,
 
We were taken by surprise on that as well. I think it's part of the recent "Clarification" from Adobe, involving changing of the wording.
 
- Evan
 
 

Message from mike.ferdinando@cornell.edu

A vendor rating scorecard is an excellent idea.

 

 

Mike Ferdinando

CIT Support Services

Service Manager – CU Software

Cornell Information Technologies

Suite 220 CCC Bldg, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853

607-254-8743  |  mike.ferdinando@cornell.edu

 

 

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Software Licensing Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Michael Ray Sherer
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:06 AM
To: LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [LICENSING] Clarification on Concurrency

 

And the vendors know this.  Of course if they're too greedy/evil/stupid, they should also know we'll dump them at the first opportunity. Anyone still use Quark XPress?  Apple's about to lose their Pro video market over FinalCut Pro X. How much love does anyone have for AutoDesk, IBM/SPSS.

 

People don't necessarily love Microsoft, but few people in higher ed would say Campus Agreement has been a bad value. 

 

I think we should create a higher ed software licensing rubric and grade our vendors. Each year we'd announce our list of the best and worst and most improved vendors, with great fanfare. 

 

Maybe that's get their attention. 

Michael Sherer

Goshen College

Sent from my iPhone


Message from mknox@austin.utexas.edu

 

I want to come back to some advice offered earlier by using partial ELAs (e.g., in a consortium, sign up all the art schools for a site license (ELA)  as they may be using it enough to justify the per FTE  cost). I think Tim’s advice does reflect current Adobe practice (and he pulled it all together well) but does not reflect a driving need to serve our general students more proactively; while many institutions will still provide labs for students to use, the ability of the casual Adobe Creative Suite student (etc) user to access the product via our concurrent licensing (virtually use it) is important. And as noted by many, to date it has not been affordable to site license (ELA) for general population for so many of us. I realize Adobe wants the money but it is likely going to push schools to be creative in interpretation on licensing or leverage products like gimp (also mentioned in an earlier posting). The latter means that in the not distant future, the work force will move towards using products like gimp in corporations. I do assume that creative commercial sector will stay with CS longer, but as we have seen in other areas, price/benefit will motivate.

 

And same for employee usage wrt restriction on administrative usage.  I also want to note that the more complicated the licensing, the more there will be end point failures. If a casual employee has always had access to the xyz product, the fact that it is now more limited in its usage may not be apparent (differentiating between admin usage and research/academic usage is tough as all in admin usage are clearly supporting academic/research usage). While Adobe should note that the ELA solves that, it also has to be practically priced in our perception.

 

Lastly, while I am copying amyr and am glad that Adobe is listening, a real dialog as noted by Sharon and Amin is likely more helpful. I am pleased that Adobe did step in and clarify our confusions and provide a collection point, but we need the further step. Trevor, can you comment on that please?

 

Here is the advice I am recycling from Tim; it was an earlier contribution to the list:

 

As one of Adobe largest academic resellers, I will echo Evan’s sentiment that the cost of Adobe ELA is very difficult to justify unless the university fits one of the following criteria:

 

· An art school

· A community college with many different vocational programs that use Adobe software

· Part of a statewide education consortia group that intends to drive participation in the Adobe ELA program amongst its members

 

As many of you know, Adobe has changed the algorithm for concurrency in each of the last three releases. Concurrent licenses used to be a 25% uplift but now, they are more than twice as expensive as a seat license. Additionally, concurrent licenses cannot legally be used in a virtual environment. The only way to legally obtain Adobe software for a virtual environment is to enter into an ELA.

 

If I could offer a suggestion, I would recommend that larger universities negotiate with Adobe by aggregating the colleges who widely use Adobe software then requesting an ELA for that subset of institutions. It has been our experience that Adobe could be responsive to a partial ELA for those colleges who may benefit from the program. They probably won’t be responsive to requests that require Adobe to lower their price per FTE to something lower than Microsoft EES Desktop.

 

 

____________________________________________________

Margaret H. Knox                  mknox@utsystem.edu

 

Chief Information Officer (CIO)     (512)322-3774   

The University of Texas System

CTJ 2.218 78701

      

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Software Licensing Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Trevor Bailey
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 5:06 PM
To: LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [LICENSING] Clarification on Concurrency

 

All,

 

Thank you all for the comments and feedback here. These are tough issues, and we’re committed to understanding and addressing as best as possible. Therefore, we are launching a new process to solicit your feedback and share the outcomes.  Starting today, if you are interested in sending feedback directly to Adobe, please send it to Amy Redell at amyr@adobe.com. She will compile the information, and will probably reach out to a few individuals and ask for their assistance on an advisory board that can help us address the broader concerns of this group. If you are willing to participate in such a board, please make that known in your email.

 

In the interim, I did want to provide additional context and background here.   The Adobe concurrent use policy was recently updated November 2011 as there was a good deal of confusion on what was deemed as concurrent usage. The policy was updated on November 15th 2011. All CLP licensing agreements signed after that date are under the new policy. CLP agreements signed prior to that date are not subject to the policy but the renewal of these agreements will be subject to the policy. This might be why different institutions are getting different answers from their Adobe sales representatives.  It’s further important to note that  concurrency is only one program within the licensing structure at Adobe. We have many other programs that address the concerns and comments that have been raised.

 

Thank you again for sharing concerns and feedback on how we can improve programs to meet your needs.

 

Best Regards,

Trevor Bailey

Director of Education

Adobe Systems

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Software Licensing Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Evan Levine
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 10:18 AM
To: LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [LICENSING] Clarification on Concurrency

 

Darrell, 

 

We were taken by surprise on that as well. I think it's part of the recent "Clarification" from Adobe, involving changing of the wording. 

 

- Evan

 

 

Close
Close


Annual Conference
September 29–October 2
Register Now!

Events for all Levels and Interests

Whether you're looking for a conference to attend face-to-face to connect with peers, or for an online event for team professional development, see what's upcoming.

Close

Digital Badges
Member recognition effort
Earn yours >

Career Center


Leadership and Management Programs

EDUCAUSE Institute
Project Management

 

 

Jump Start Your Career Growth

Explore EDUCAUSE professional development opportunities that match your career aspirations and desired level of time investment through our interactive online guide.

 

Close
EDUCAUSE organizes its efforts around three IT Focus Areas

 

 

Join These Programs If Your Focus Is

Close

Get on the Higher Ed IT Map

Employees of EDUCAUSE member institutions and organizations are invited to create individual profiles.
 

 

Close

2014 Strategic Priorities

  • Building the Profession
  • IT as a Game Changer
  • Foundations


Learn More >

Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good™

EDUCAUSE is the foremost community of higher education IT leaders and professionals.