Does FDS 19 include concurrent connections?

Claris Licensing
41

So, yes, the FDS 19 license has become even more restrictive. Thanks

42

I don't agree. I've worked through this with them also. And the use-case is within the parameters of testing. Use 1 of your 3 licenses for your client to connect and test. As long as they are only testing, you seem to be in line with the license.

2 Likes
43

This is one of those times where a conversation would have most likely cleared this up right away. I just tried to call FMI Sales again, but, again, nobody answered.

Here's the use case.

  1. I install FDS.
  2. I install an FMP app on it (I have a full license for FMP 19)
  3. I give a client a URL that he can use in his browser to test out the app. The client does NOT have FMP and would always use Web Direct.

That's all I (still) want to do.

Previously, per my original posting above, the FDS EULA explicitly mentioned the concurrent connection. Because the FDS 19 EULA no longer mentions this connection, and FDS notoriously "phones home", I want to verify that the EULA omission is just that: an omission. Not a change in license.

That's all my question was. However, a "you seem to be inline", etc., isn't enough to be sure what FMI is thinking.

I appreciate all your attempts to clarify.

Thanks

1 Like
44

To designate a "user", internally you name them on your list of named users. Then they connect. When they are no longer a user on your list of named users, it frees up the license to be used by a different user.

That's process Claris expects us to use with FDS or normal User licensing. That user can connect to the server via WebDirect as part of the license.

45

“List of named users”—Do you mean a user name and password in a hosted FDS app?

46

No. There is no technical enforcement of that list, unless you are on FileMaker Cloud. You list your users. Internally. If Claris ever did ask for it, you could say, these were the users active on this date. Most often, the only user is going to be you.

And you can confirm they were only testing for you.

47

Most often for me it’s going to be a client looking at stuff. I don’t understand what you mean by “you list your users internally”.

Therefore, I’m going to keep trying to reach FMI sales as I don’t ever want to be on the defensive with some call challenging my usage from some dude at FMI. Probably COVID precautions has reduced sales staff available to answer phone calls.

Thanks.

1 Like
48

@anon45965781 I think you’re wise.

I can see nothing in any licensing documentation so far that accommodates use outside of your own organisation.

1 Like
49

Thanks Andy. :+1:

50

Well, talking to FM sales wouldn't be my move. I've gotten so much wrong info from them. I use them to get my license order put in, nothing more. LOL

2 Likes
51

Checkmate I guess.

1 Like
52

it is possible to understand it - but unpleasant to sell which is unfortunate.

2 Likes
53

LOL. Well put. :grinning:

2 Likes
54

I disagree. Simple would be something like "15 Bucks per user/month", no matter what and no matter how many users. And not "Single Licence, Cloud, Essential, Standard, Developer, Connect, On-Premise, on whatever...." WTF?

3 Likes
55

I agree.

I spent $17,500 for an oracle CPU license a while back and while a bit expensive, I didn’t feel ripped off. I don’t know why FileMaker Server must be so expensive and with such convoluted license terms. I gave up on FMS ($2,700 per year for five measly concurrent connections!) a long while back but was hoping FDS might be better — only to find now FMI has made FDS even more restrictive. :-1:

FileMaker is a fine product.

FMS is a fine product too, but, IMHO ruined by the license.

Bottom line: lost sale.

1 Like
56

Was $900/year for 5 users not an option?

57

What about remote connections? I'd have a client connect to WebDirect to check things out (not a local machine).

Thanks...good info.

58

I could be wrong, but I've never seen any indication that FileMaker server's WebDirect has any concept of LAN vs WAN connections. The tests I ran earlier in the thread were to a LAN IP address over HTTP, but I would expect that connecting to a WAN IP address (either by IP or DNS name) should work the same, and should work the same over HTTP over HTTPS.

59

You’re probably right. I just want to get confirmation from FMI on the concurrent connections.

Thanks.

1 Like
60

From my tests above, it looks like FDS does support anonymous concurrent WebDirect [Guest] connections. Since the license doesn't specifically say you can't use that feature, personally I would feel OK using that for testing, as long as the FDS is being used for test not production, as that seems within the spirit of the license.

After all, the FDS license is ultimately a tool for FM to make another sale of a real license by you or your client. It would seem quite illogical for them to go around punishing people for use that is aligned with that goal. Just my advice, others may feel differently of course.

It would be nice to get an official answer from FM, but it seems like you've done heroic efforts arlready to find out!

1 Like