Urgent help needed: Licensing snafu following server crash

[Kenneth Brody]

Quoting Barry Wiseman (Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:45:24 -0400):

> Kenneth Brody wrote:
>> Quoting Barry Wiseman (Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:37:14 -0400):
>>
>>> Kenneth Brody wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> But filePro will fall back to a 7 day grace period if it sees   
>>>> that a license
>>>> that used to be valid is no longer valid for whatever reason.
>>>
>>> In my case there was no grace period, at least none perceivable by  
>>>   me or by the users.  (Maybe licinfo would have reported  
>>> something  about
>>> it, but   why would I think to run that?)  One day, fully functional
>>> 64-user license with no indication that any sort of "grace period" was
>>> in effect.  Next day, demo license, single-user only.
>>
>> Any grace period would have been for the same license, so you would have
>> had a 7-day grace period on a 64-user license, not a single-user demo.
>> Is it possible someone replaced the license with a valid single-user
>> demo license?
>
> I'm 99.9999% confident the answer is "no".  After first being
> installed, the 5.0.15 version ran normally for nearly a month.  Only
> upon rebooting from the unscheduled power outage did the program
> suddenly think it was a demo.

Didn't licinfo show that the license was an old 5.6 beta license?

Perhaps you had started running the license manager a month earlier,
with the proper 64-user license in place, and then sometime during
the month, replaced the license the the 5.6 beta, without restarting
the license manager?  Only after the reboot (and hence, a restart of
the license manager) did it see the "new" license file.

>  At that point I verified that licfp.dat
> was still md5sum-identical with what came from fptech's distro tarball.

I suppose the question is "which tarball"?  And is it possible that
you had multiple license files (perhaps multiple PFPROG locations),
and you were looking at the wrong one?

> However, I never looked at licfp.bkp until much later in the day,
> after various fixes had been attempted.
>
> I do see that the yum daemon installed a new kernel (CentOS 4.5,
> 2.6.9-55.0.2 -> 2.6.9-55.0.6) on Sep 4.  The post-crash boot would be
> the first instance of the box running that new kernel.  Might fP's
> licensing scheme have stumbled over that?

What is the license tied to?  Did that value change with the new kernel?

[...]

-- 
KenBrody at BestWeb dot net        spamtrap: <g8ymh8uf001 at sneakemail.com>
http://www.hvcomputer.com
http://www.fileProPlus.com