Does anyone know why a installation is classed as 'unlicensed'?

Jason Brough2 · ‎11-09-2022

We have a situation which seems quite common. We have some products which have plenty of rights but also has 4 'unlicensed installs'. As a result, the product is viewed as non-compliant.

What makes an installation 'unlicensed' and how do make a installation 'licensed'?

I have tried all sorts but I would have expected that adding a device or user allocation on the entitlement record would have changed the status to 'licensed install'.

MercBuilding · ‎11-29-2022

Hi @Jason Brough2 ,

Can you please provide the screenshots of License metric results and unlicensed installs ? What is the license metric for those entitlements? If its 'Per Core'/Per Server then please check if the CI's are virtual or not. If they are virtual then it is expecting virtualization relationships in place to consume the rights.

Hope this helps!

If my answer helped you in any way or if this resolved your issue, please then mark it as helpful or correct accordingly to set this thread to solved.

Thanks,

Sravanthi

Fel Tay · ‎03-21-2023

In one case, we had Per User licenses and a couple clearly allocated users were still showing up as Unlicensed. Turns out, it was linking to an expired copy of that user account. Maybe the person had changed from contractor to FTE, I don't know, but when I changed the Hardware assignment to the active user, the issue was resolved.

MercBuilding · ‎08-09-2023

Hi @Fel Tay ,

Are there any allocation rules or entitlement rules defined to allow only FTE users to use the software?

mikew_samexpert · ‎08-09-2023

I've seen this situation many times. The problem occurs because the user name detected by, for example, SCCM is slightly different from the user name in sys.user (which is usually pulled from AD), e.g. Mike vs Michael, anglicised names, etc.