[quote=“jody, post:13, topic:3458, full:true”]
We didn’t change the name for licensing because it’s still licensing, the name is still accurate. This was a pretty big change on our side with very little, for the most part, relevant to users. To give it a new name will start to confuse what it is and does. Really, the only place where there is confusion is with network licensing. We’re tickled to now offer the ability to have a WAN license and to check out licenses for use offline, but they’re still functions of network licensing. The most clear name change we can offer, isn’t really that clear to most; single user licensing would be “node-locked” and network licensing could be called “floating.” [/quote]
You are arguing about technical reasons & nitty details, that cause you and your team to think a certain way. (I know it uses network communication protocol, and still is a form of network licensing.)
But your arguing the point, proves “you do not get it.”
It is not about what you think nor what your team believes. It is about what the customers believe. It is about how customers think they should be treated, and informed of such fundamental changes.
My suggestion of changing the name, is a public relations signal that things have changed. It’s a courtesy.
Anyway in another thread a customer explains more what they need:
Configuring proxy server for “network” license