Virtualization & FlexNet Publisher

WH

ITE

PA

PE

R

Virtualizat ion & FlexNet Publisher

Virtualizat ion & FlexNet PublisherIntroduct ionAlmost all software licensing models eventually require either one license or a pool of licenses to be bound to a particular machine. While this was answered over the years for physical machines, some virtualization technologies are posing new challenges for software producers to enforce their license agreements using traditional licensing models. Various analyst white papers purport that server virtualization has moved past the early adopter stage to that of strategic virtualization. For example, Forrester reports the adoption of server virtualization in enterprise IT will reach 65% by 2009 with 45% of x86 servers virtualized.1 This means software producers must develop and communicate licensing policies that take into account their license server and applications will run on virtual machines. It also means that FlexNet Publisher must provide the appropriate enforcement and reporting tools to allow the software producer and their enterprise customers to confidently operate in this new virtual environment.

Flexera Software research indicates that most software producers have not modified their license policies to deal with virtualization. Longer term it is recognized that new usage based ways to monetize software must be considered. However, in the short term existing hardware centric licensing models must be applied to virtual platforms.

This document describes how FlexNet Publisher will enable the software producer to embrace virtualization by providing various means to enforce licensing on virtual machines. This paper describes approaches and technologies available today as well as those that are being considered in the future.

Quest ions Software Producers Must Answer Based upon two Flexera Software-hosted virtualizat ion summits, part icipat ing customers recognize their organizations must answer some the following quest ions:

1. Have we defined a virtualizat ion policy and has this policy been communicated to our customers? Can we use the same policy as we do for the physical hardware environment?

2. How many of our customers are using virtualizat ion today? Is there a compliance problem and can it be quantified? What virtual plat forms are our customers using and in combination with what OS platforms?

3. Are there new markets available because of virtualizat ion (e.g., t ime rental via SaaS)?

4. What specific problem do we want to solve (e.g., Piracy, compliance, or both). Are we concerned with intent ional vs. unintent ional overuse?

5. Should pricing be based on physical or virtual resources (sub-capacity pricing)?

6. Should alternate pricing models be defined to license in virtual environments? Should we charge more based upon the addit ional virtualizat ion test matrix involved? Is there a market to charge less for limited capability?

The results of a limited virtualizat ion survey conducted during one of the aforementioned virtualizat ion summits are summarized below.

2 Flexera Software: FlexNet Publisher White Paper Series

1 As reported in the FORRESTER white paper ent it led “x86 Virtualizat ion Adopters Hit the Tipping Point,” November 30, 2007

Virtualizat ion and FlexNet Publisher for Trusted Storage and Cert ificate-Based Licenses

3Flexera Software: FlexNet Publisher White Paper Series

As can be seen from these tables, most of the software producers surveyed indicate their organizations have not defined and communicated their virtualizat ion policy. While most have not quantified a specific compliance problem around virtualizat ion, it is recognized the potent ial for overuse is there and must be solved. Finally, most customers intend to init ially apply tradit ional licensing and pricing models to virtual environments.

Quest ion 1: Has your company defined and communicated your virtualizat ion policy? % of Votes

Yes 21%

We are in process of creat ing a policy, but it is not complete. 21%

We have not started on a virtualizat ion policy. 42%

I don’t know. 14%

Quest ion 2: Have you quant ified a compliance problem around virtualizat ion? % of Votes

We have quantified a compliance problem and need to solve this problem. 20%

We have not quantified a compliance problem, but we want the ability to enforce our license policies in virtual environments.

60%

We don’t care about enforcing or monitoring compliance around virtualizat ion. 6%

I don’t have an opinion at this t ime. 13%

Quest ion 3: Have you defined new ways to monet ize your software around virtualizat ion?

% of Votes

No, we will use exist ing licensing and pricing models. 64%

No, but we have started to discuss this. 14%

Yes, we have defined new models to better match our software usage within virtual environments.

7%

I don’t know. 14%

Survey Results



Types of Virtualizat ion TechnologiesThe most commonly known virtualizat ion technology is virtual machine technology. However, there are other types. Here is a part ial inventory of those types, the vendors who supply the technology, and a summary of the software licensing issues.

Virtual MachinesWith virtual machine technologies, each operat ing system instance on a physical machine is made to believe it’s the only operat ing system running on that physical machine. These technologies do this by virtualizing (abstract ing) the machine’s hardware components, one virtual machine instance per operat ing system instance.

Applicat ion Virtualizat ion / Applicat ion Isolat ionWith applicat ion isolat ion technologies, each applicat ion instance running on an operat ing system instance is made to believe it’s the only applicat ion running on that operat ing system. These technologies do this by virtualizing the operat ing system’s file system (and registry on Windows), one virtual file system (and registry) instance per applicat ion instance. Some applicat ion isolat ion technologies also isolate the operat ing system’s global namespace, so objects like semaphores are not shared between applicat ion instances. All other operat ing system services are shared between isolated and non-isolated applicat ion instance.

Terminal ServicesWith terminal services, one terminal server machine supports mult iple user sessions. Each user session encapsulates the desktop environment of one remotely logged-in user. Each user is made to believe they are the only user on that machine.

Remote Control(Also known as KVM over IP) – One person can control the host computer at any one t ime. The keyboard and mouse connected to the host computer and to each of the guest computers can be act ive simultaneously and thus compete to be the source of input. Keystroke and mouse events from these different input sources can be interleaved. Also, the video of each computer displays the same single desktop. Therefore, these solut ions are not intended for mult iple guest computers to share the resources of the host computer at the same t ime.

Remote control solut ions do not represent a security vulnerability to license management systems. The ability to remotely control a host computer does not enable a dishonest user to run more instances of licensed software than they could already run if they were using the KVM attached to the host computer. Therefore, this document will not further discuss remote control technologies.

The remainder of the document will describe Flexera Software’s approach to providing our software producer customers the tools necessary to deal with licensing within virtual machine (server virtualizat ion) environments using FlexNet Publisher.

Figure 1: Part ial List of Virtualizat ion Technologies

Virtualizat ion Technology Vendor/Products Software Licensing Issue?

Virtual Machines VMware: Workstat ion, ESX;Microsoft: Hyper-V, Virtual PC/Server;Citrix: Xen Server, Desktop;Parallels: Desktop and Server (Mac), Server (Linux), Workstat ion (Windows and Linux); Sun: Zones;IBM pSeries: LPARs;HP: VPars, Integrity

Affects licensing

Applicat ion Virtualizat ion Microsoft: App-V;VMware: ThinApp;

Affects licensing

Terminal Services Microsoft: Terminal Server;Citrix: Presentat ion Server;Sun: Secure Global Desktop

Affects licensing

Remote Control GoToMyPC, PCAnyWhere, VNC No affect on licensing



Compliance and Piracy Challenges of Virtualizat ion Software producers’ licensing policies and approaches range from compliance for trusted customers to enforcement for markets that pose more risk of intent ional overuse or outright piracy. Tradit ional licensing models that bind the license server or applicat ion to the physical machine have worked well over the years. As software producers know, any software license can be exploited by a determined hacker. However, tradit ional license enforcement technologies, design pract ices, and processes do a good job at keeping honest customers honest and to discourage the casual exploiter.

Virtualizat ion technologies have changed this landscape by making it very easy to create mult iple virtual machines on a single physical machine. While the advantages of machine virtualizat ion are obvious and ent icing for the enterprise customer, this technology poses challenges for the software producer using tradit ional license enforcement. This is because virtual machines can be configured to have the same attributes (e.g., MAC address, port number, IP address, etc.) that match an exist ing license file. While the risk is low for widespread piracy of a licensed applicat ion, there is potent ial high risk of the license server being replicated on many virtual machines making available many more ent it lements than were purchased. This situat ion is depicted in Figure 2 below.

Over the past several years, Flexera Software has collaborated with many software producer customers as well as virtualizat ion vendors about license enforcement

challenges and approaches to mit igate this risk. Our customers tell us that they want to apply tradit ional license models to virtual environments. This approach is important in order to maintain backward compatibility with legacy clients deployed at many end user locations.

The challenge for Flexera Software and FlexNet Publisher is there is no universal method to detect and interface with the mult itude of virtualizat ion platforms available today. To resolve this challenge, Flexera Software has engaged in dialogs with mult iple virtualizat ion vendors to define a supported interface method between FlexNet Publisher and their plat forms.

Flexera Software has also developed a Virtualizat ion API specification in collaborat ion with several virtualizat ion vendors. This standard will provide a uniform interface method that will allow FlexNet Publisher to more rapidly support those virtualizat ion platforms that adopt this standard. Other vendors have developed their own API’s and architectures to accomplish this interface (although with varying degrees of complexity, effect iveness, and overhead).

Flexera Software’s Approach to Virtualizat ionFlexera Software’s virtualizat ion roadmap for FlexNet Publisher enables the software producer to establish an enforcement strategy based upon the level of trust they have with their customers. The trust range is graphically shown Figure 3 below.

For markets or customers where no trust exists, the publisher can detect the presence of virtual machines and decide not to allow the license server to run or not to issue a license to an applicat ion that is installed on a virtual machine. Referring to the above diagram, permission to run on a virtual machine (VM) would be denied, therefore, no binding and report ing would come into play. This approach is perhaps the safest for the producer and may be just ified for risky markets. However, the reality of enterprise virtualizat ion and the affect on customer sat isfact ion that may result must also be considered.

Guest OSLICENSESERVERCE

Guest OSLICLSEEC

t OSVNCEN

ERVVVENVNV

C NNt OSt OS

Guest OSLICENSESERVERCE

GGGuest OSGLICLSESEC

t OSGGVNCEN

ERVVVENVNV

C NN

Guest OGGG t OSG

GueGueuest Ot OSGGG SG

OOttesesueueGuGuGuest OS

LICENSESERVER

License Server Bound to Physical

Hardware is Hard to Replicate

License Server Bound to Virtual

Hardware is Easy to Replicate

Guest OS

Guest OS

Guest OS

Operat ing System

VM H

yper

viso

r

LICENSESERVER

GuGGGGst tGt OGGtGGGG

LICENSESERVER

Figure 2: License Server Instances Bound to Physical or Virtual Hardware

STRONG NONEWEAK

Permission: AllowBinding: VM ContainerReport: Log File

Permission: AllowBinding: PhysicalReport: Log File

Permission: ProhibitBinding: N/AReport: N/A

Figure 3: Range of Trust between Software Producers and their Markets



For markets or customers where strong trust exists, the publisher can first detect the presence of a virtual machine and then bind the license server to the Universal Unique Ident ifier (UUID) of the VM container. Likewise, the license file for an applicat ion can also be bound to the UUID of a part icular VM container. While it is true that UUID’s can be replicated and applied to addit ional virtual machines (either on the same or on different physical machines), virtualizat ion management software is almost always present (such as VMware’s vCenter) that will detect this condit ion and issue system errors unt il this situat ion is corrected. In this scenario, permission to run on a VM is granted but VM container binding is also enforced to increase confidence that license ent it lements are not replicated on addit ional virtual machines. With this approach, the end user of the license can take full advantage of the advanced VM funct ionalit ies like high-availability and fault tolerance, since the licenses can be moved from one physical machine to another without failure. The FlexNet Publisher report log contains both virtual and physical plat form data and license checkout denial information.

For those markets and customers deemed to be in the middle of the trust range, the publisher can detect the presence of a virtual machine and then bind to a physical hardware element (or combination of elements) of the host machine (e.g., MAC address). Included in binding is a mutex locking mechanism to ensure the license server is not copied and able to issue licenses from a second VM on the same hardware platform. In this scenario, permission to run on a VM is granted but physical binding is also required to increase confidence that license ent it lements are not replicated. The report log will contain virtual and physical plat form data and license checkout denial information. This approach is more secure than VM container binding, but will not support use cases such as high-availability or fail-over where the VM will move from one physical server to another.

The software producer must first answer some of the quest ions presented at the beginning of this paper to quantify the problems they want to address and then determine the appropriate license enforcement response for the markets and customers they serve.

License Enforcement Using Virtual Machine Detect ionFlexNet Publisher offers license enforcement options based on virtual machine detect ion. This release incorporates a number of published techniques to ident ify virtual machine platforms to allow the FlexNet Publisher vendor daemons and FLEX-enabled applicat ions to ident ify if they are being run on a virtual machine. While the techniques implemented allow the detect ion of a number of different virtual machine platforms, this release specifically supports the VMware ESX Server and Workstat ion products.

Care is taken such that false posit ives are not generated for virtual machine detect ion, while at the same t ime ensuring these techniques are not easily defeated. Once the software ident ifies that it is being run on a virtual machine, the software producer can implement within their software an appropriate act ion based on a defined virtualizat ion policy. Some of the business policies that can be enforced include the ability to:

1. Refuse to start the license server in a virtual environment.

2. Refuse to enable a part icular feature of the applicat ion in a virtual environment.

3. Restrict a software feature to be funct ional only in a virtual environment.

The following segment describes some use cases where the virtual machine detect ion capabilit ies can be useful and the FlexNet Publisher syntax needed to implement the desired capability:

1. Software Producer A deploys only a served licensing model. They market low-volume, high-cost software and both casual and intent ional piracy is a big concern for them. They do not want their license server to be deployed in a virtual machine due to the ease with which this can lead to license over usage. They will instead require their customers to locate their license server on a physical machine within the data center.

• This is implemented by the software publisher by sett ing a compile t ime switch within the license server customization code. Specifically, within the file lsvendor.c the following variable sett ing is made and the license server is built:

FLEX_VM_TYPE ls_allow_vm = PHYSICAL; /* Restrict VD to a physical m/c only */

2. Software producer B deploys both served and unserved licensing models. Certain features of their applicat ion cannot run on virtual machines (e.g., they require connect ing a measurement instrument using a USB port that is not supported on a virtual plat form). They would like to disable these features on virtual machines while at the same t ime allowing the other product features to funct ion on both virtual and physical plat forms.

• This is implemented by the software publisher by using the license file keyword VM_PLATFORMS on the FEATURE line as shown below:

FEATURE measure_voltage admld 2.5 01-jan-2012 4 \

VM_PLATFORMS=PHYSICAL SIGN=”00E3 ……”



3. Software producer C deploys their software primarily using the unserved, node-locked license model. They are concerned about software piracy, part icularly with their non-enterprise users and would like to restrict their software to physical hardware. However, they do want to support certain trusted enterprise customers who want to use their software on virtual machine instances. In short, they want to control the ability of their software to funct ion on a virtual machine (or not) via the license file.

• This is implemented by the software publisher by using the license file keyword VM_PLATFORMS on the FEATURE line as shown below and grant ing these licenses on a case-by-case basis:

FEATURE ultraplot admld 3.5 01-may-2011 4 \ VM_PLATFORMS=VM_ONLY SIGN=”00E3 ……”

License Enforcement Using Bare Metal BindingAs discussed earlier, binding the licenses to virtual machine hardware may lead to license over usage due to the ease with which the virtual hardware can be replicated. To reduce the possibility of license over usage in markets where weak trust exists, binding the licenses to physical hardware elements is recommended. In this method, the license server (or the client applicat ions) running on virtual machines will bypass the virtual hardware and establish bindings with the host system (or the bare metal). In this situat ion, even if the virtual machine in which the license server is running is later copied, the bindings break rendering the license server inoperable.

While the bare metal binding solves the problem of a license being copied from one physical host to the next, it doesn’t eliminate the possibility of over usage.

Over usage can st ill happen if mult iple instances of a virtual machine, running on the same physical machine, are used to run the license server. To eliminate this condit ion, a facility that will enforce a mutex lock is needed so only one instance of a license server (of one software producer) is being run on a given physical machine.

FlexNet Publisher v11.8 will provide both bare metal binding and mutex locking. These two technologies are depicted in the solut ions shown in figure 4.

This approach provides advantages to both the software producer and their enterprise customers. The software producer has reasonable assurance of a relat ively secure licensing solut ion, while the license administrator can deploy the licensing solut ion in a data center with virtual machine installat ions.

The following segment describes some use cases where both virtual machine detect ion and bare metal binding capabilit ies can be combined using FlexNet Publisher features and syntax to implement more robust license enforcement capability:

1. The example of Software Producer A deploying only a served licensing model described in the License Enforcement Using Virtual Machine Detect ion sect ion above is expanded upon. Using the new capability available in FlexNet Publisher the producer can expand upon the virtualizat ion detect ion implemented previously to include bare metal binding and mutex detect ion for addit ional license enforcement capability, while not having to build different versions of the license server. This allows the producer to select ively relax their requirement of a license server only running on a physical machine on a case-by-case basis for increased customer sat isfact ion.

• This is implemented by the software producer by using special host id keywords on the SERVER line in the license files introduced in FNP. These host id types specify: a) the platform type that the license server is authorized to run on, and b) the host id type. Some examples are shown below:

• Example 1: To restrict the license server to VMware ESX server and to use the Ethernet address of the physical hardware, specify:

SERVER this_host VMW_ETHER=1234

• Example 2: To restrict the license server to a physical machine and to use the IP address of the machine as the host id type, specify:

SERVER this_host PHY_INTERNET=10.10.12.101Figure 4: Solut ions with Bare Metal Binding and Mutex Lock

Bare Metal Binding Makes the Licenses

Hard to Copy

Bare Metal Binding with Mutex Lock Prevents

Mult iple Instances of t he License Server on the

Same Physical Box

Guest OS

Guest OS

Guest OS LICENSESERVER

LICENSELSERVERS

Guest OS

Guest OS

Guest OS

VM H

yper

viso

r

LICENSESERVER

t O

G t OS

GuGuGGG



License Enforcement Using the UUIDIn situat ions where strong trust exists between software producers and their customers, it may be desirable to define a more flexible binding method that can be included within a licensing policy. FlexNet Publisher v11.8 will provide the capability to bind the license server to the UUID of the virtual machine container.

As previously stated, while it is recognized the UUID can be replicated and applied to addit ional virtual machines, virtualizat ion management software (that is almost always present) ensures the UUID is unique on the network.

Allowing the enterprise customer to bind to the UUID of the virtual machine container will allow them to support the license server and the flexibility to take advantage of other advanced virtualizat ion management capability (such as a high-availability configurat ion) providing greater flexibility and security to their operat ion.

• This is implemented by the software producer by using special host id keywords on the SERVER line in the license files introduced in FNP v11.8. For example, To restrict the license server to VMware ESX and to use the UUID of the virtual machine instance, specify:

SERVER this_host VMW_UUID=1234…

Virtualizat ion and Trusted StorageThe FlexNet Publisher Trusted Storage solut ion presents its own unique challenges related to license over usage in a virtual environment. The affected funct ionalit ies are three-fold: • Anchoring • Binding • Machine Ident ificat ion Act ivat ion Transact ions

These topics are discussed in a litt le more detail below.The Trusted Storage technology uses system anchors to ident ify if the trusted storage has been restored from a backup or overwritten. These are really links to one or more system ident ifiers that cross-check the integrity of the Trusted Storage file with the system. Different anchor types are used on different operat ing systems, with some anchors being much harder to spoof by a user than others. However, a Trusted Storage solut ion running on a virtual machine only has access to the virtual anchor types, which can be reverted back quite easily. This affects the trial anchors implemented by the Trusted Storage solut ion, with the result that the trials can be retaken endlessly. The solut ion to this problem would consist of storing the anchor information on the physical host of the virtual machine.

The license rights that are held in Trusted Storage are locked to a system to prevent them from being transferred illegally to another system. This is referred to as binding and the system characterist ics use for the binding are referred to as binding ident it ies. The problem with virtual machines with respect to binding is similar to that of License File based licensing – that the binding ident it ies too easily duplicated when you copy a virtual machine. The solut ion to the problem is also the same – use the physical binding ident it ies instead of the virtual ones.

The Trusted Storage act ivat ion technology relies upon uniquely ident ifying a machine (using UMN values) when performing transact ions with the act ivat ion server (such as the FlexNet Operat ions). This is required so that in case of a repair or return transact ion, the act ivat ion server can ensure that the same machine that has act ivated the original license is involved in these transact ions. With the virtualizat ion technology, it is very easy to setup mult iple machines that look to be the same hence result ing in license over usage. The solut ion, once again, would rely upon using physical elements for machine ident ificat ion in combination with virtual machine ident it ies.

Entit lement and Compliance ManagementLicense enforcement in virtualizat ion environments is only one component of an end-to-end ent it lement and compliance management (ECM) solut ion.

ESX SERVERPHYSICAL MACHINE

Virtualizat ionManagement

VM6UUID=CCC

LicenseServerUUID=XYZ

VM5UUID=BBB


VM4UUID=AAA


Licenseerver

UUIDZ

LicenseServerUUID=

YZ

LicenseServerUUID

Z

LicenseServerUUIDXYZ

ServerUIDXYZ


ESX SERVERPHYSICAL MACHINE

VM3UUID=123


VM2UUID=ABC


VM1UUID=XYZ


Licenseerver

UUIDZ

LicverD=

YZ

ese

ServeUUID

LicenseServerUUID

Z


Figure 5: Binding to the UUID of the VM Container



In addit ion to the concerns and approaches presented to address license over usage, there are other considerat ions related to license life cycle act ivit ies that may have a bearing on a software producer’s virtualizat ion policies. For example, a software producer may want to gather data on how many of their products are being used on physical machines vs. virtual machines. Such data would be invaluable to better understand markets and specific customers so these usage patterns can be evaluated as new licensing models are considered for virtualizat ion deployments. This information would also help the software producer ensure their support staff is appropriately trained to handle real-world customer deployments.

Gathering of such data can be easily achieved if the license act ivat ion server (such as FlexNet Operat ions) act ively logs the platform type on which the license rights are requested. Similar logging of the platform data can be done on the license user side via the report log files generated by the FlexNet Publisher license servers. These report log files can then be analyzed using FlexNet Manager to extract the virtual plat form related stat ist ics.

Other Possibilit iesAdvanced product offerings from the virtualizat ion vendors open up many possibilit ies to ensure the reliability of a license server. For example, the High Availability/Fault Tolerance features offered by virtualizat ion vendors can ensure the license server will never need to be shut down. In fact with appropriate usage, the need for three server redundancy solut ions may also be obviated.

Best Pract ices for the Software ProducerFlexera Software recommends the software producer start with a more restrict ive approach to their policy of allowing the license server to run in virtual environments and then later relax the policy on a case-by-case basis. Start ing with FlexNet Publisher v11.7, the license server can be restricted to a physical machine only without needing a change in the license file. Then, with FlexNet Publisher v11.8, the new license file syntax can be ut ilized along with a new license server. The new license file syntax can be released to the customers at the t ime of license renewals so as to cause least disrupt ion to the services.

Caution: If the license server is built and deployed to run on virtual machines, this exposure cannot be retracted. It is, therefore, suggested to use the approach discussed in this sect ion.

Conclusion/SummaryAs mentioned at the beginning of this paper, most software producers will init ially apply tradit ional licensing models to virtual environments. Longer term, most also recognize the challenges placed upon these tradit ional models when their

software runs on a virtual machine. For example, one new capability available in VMware’s vSphere 4.0 hypervisor and management toolset is the ability to dynamically allocate virtual CPUs (vCPUs). This capability will further play havoc with CPU based licensing.

Research by software industry analysts substant iate the industry trend away from hardware based licensing models toward usage based models such as subscript ion and SaaS.2 As has been presented in this paper, the fundamental byproduct of virtualizat ion technology serves to remove the t ime-honored hardware hooks and metrics that producers have depended upon to secure and monetize their software.

FlexNet Publisher will provide the tools necessary for our customers to embrace server virtualizat ion that is now so prevalent in the enterprise.

About FlexNet Publisher Part of Flexera Software’s Ent it lement and Compliance Management Solut ion, FlexNet Publisher enables software producers and high-tech manufacturers to increase revenues and simplify customer relat ionships.

The flexible, yet robust licensing capabilit ies provided by FlexNet Publisher allow producers and high-tech manufacturers to address piracy and ensure protect ion of intellectual property, as well as to react quickly and efficient ly to new and evolving markets through creation of new pricing models and versat ile product configurat ions.

FlexNet Publisher is the industry leader, with over 20 years of experience, a proven track record, more than 3,000 thousand customers and over 20,000 FLEX enabled applications to date. FlexNet was awarded the “Industry best software product for software producers” in 2007 by SIIA.

About Flexera SoftwareFlexera Software is the leading provider of strategic solut ions for Applicat ion Usage Management; solut ions delivering cont inuous compliance, optimized usage and maximized value to applicat ion producers and their customers. Flexera Software is trusted by more than 80,000 customers that depend on our comprehensive solut ions - from installat ion and licensing, ent it lement and compliance management to applicat ion readiness and software license optimization - to strategically manage applicat ion usage and achieve breakthrough results realized only through the systems-level approach we provide. For more information, please go to: www.flexerasoftware.com

For more information on FlexNet Publisher and FlexNet Suite, please visit:www.flexerasoftware.com/fnp

2 As reported in IDC’s Briefing “Going Hybrid with SaaS - Managing Perpetual and Subscript ion Businesses in the Same Chassis” on June 17th, 2009 with Amy Konary.

http://www.flexerasoftware.com/products/installation.htm

http://www.flexerasoftware.com/products/software-licensing-entitlement-compliance.htm

http://www.flexerasoftware.com/products/software-licensing-entitlement-compliance.htm

http://www.flexerasoftware.com/products/application-readiness.htm

http://www.flexerasoftware.com/products/enterprise-license-optimization.htm

http://www.flexerasoftware.com/products/enterprise-license-optimization.htm

http://www.flexerasoftware.com

http://www.flexerasoftware.com/fnp

http://www.flexerasoftware.com/fnp

WH

ITE

PA

PE

R

Flexera Software LLC1000 East Woodfield Road, Suite 400Schaumburg, IL 60173 USA

Schaumburg (Global Headquarters):+1 800-809-5659

United Kingdom (Europe, Middle East Headquarters):+44 870-871-1111+44 870-873-6300

Australia (Asia, Pacific Headquarters):+61 3-9895-2000

For more office locat ions visit:www.flexerasoftware.com

Copyright © 2012 Flexera Software LLC. All other brand and product names ment ioned herein may be the trademarks and registered trademarks of their respect ive owners. FNP_WP_Virtualizat ion2_Sept12

www.flexerasoftware.com