With our
Acalis Sentry Security Server solution we needed to offer our customers both feature-based and role-based functionality.
Customers pressed CPU Tech for more flexible software licensing and pricing models. Needing an easy and efficient way to differentiate levels of functional- ity, operations, and security to customers at various stages of the product/project life cycle, CPU Tech began by identifying the following requirements for software licensing and entitlement management:
f Feature-based and role-based licensing and pricing models
f Provide embedded-node-locked and floating licensing capability
f Offer both offline (for machines operating in a classified area) and web-based activation
f Simplify complex product life cycle management
f Ability to automate the customer activation process
Ryan Kenny, responsible for product marketing at CPU Tech, explained, “With our Acalis Sentry Security Server solution we needed to offer our customers both feature-based and role-based functional- ity. Our solution can be operating in many different environments with different feature sets enabled or disabled, such as in development, manufacturing, security configuration, and security audit envi- ronments.” He added, “In each environ- ment and use case, different people with different roles and security requirements operate the device. And in each use case, there are different feature sets enabled and disabled based on security and opera- tions needs. For instance, customers may
www.embedded-computing.com Embedded Computing Design April 2011 | 21
alternate between ‘call-back’ registration and standalone licensing and activation, depending on where they are in their development cycle.”
Early on CPU Tech determined it needed to engage with a third-party software licensing and entitlement management vendor. With its focus on its core com- petencies the company had no desire to develop a homegrown licensing solution, preferring to partner with an embedded software licensing and entitlement management provider. CPU Tech fol- lowed up on its initial list of criteria by describing key characteristics of the workable licensing approach:
f Appropriate and adequate cryptographic encryption for license key protection and storage
f Small memory footprint f Support for processor architecture f Support for embedded operating systems – needed to be OS independent, and easy to port
f Support for programming language
f Performance and reliability f Easy to manage and track the license entitlement
f License activation automation f Integration with other management systems, such as Salesforce
f Acceptable total cost of ownership
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54