Unlicensed Installs

[Cons Austria]

I'm getting a number of unlicensed installs but the software model result and license metric result are empty

The discovery model and DMAPs look good to me. Anyone knows what these are?

[Jason Brough2]

Hi, did you get any further forward with this? I am also seeing products which are non-compliant simply because they are tagged as unlicensed installs, even though there are plenty of rights available.

What makes a installation unlicensed?

[Divya140]

Any update on the post even I am seeing the same 

[Engelica Adalia]

@Divya140 Here's a few a reason I can think of:

• Software installation cannot be mapped to any discovery model.
• Inferred suite is blank (unable to find any software model the installation belongs to).
• No available software model defined for the specific normalized publisher/product/version.
• Not enough entitlement (licenses) to cover the installations.
• Software model/entitlement is not setup correctly (incorrect license metric/type).
• Partially normalized.

You may have to check each installation and investigate further (e.g. it may be as simple as reverting the normalization and manually normalizing it to the correct software model). Hope this helps!  

[Elie Baho]

I'm curious about what you said in regards to the Software Model/Entitlement not setup correctly (incorrect license metric)

If a Discovered Model has been normalized, at which stage do you specify its license metric in order to be covered by your respective entitlement?  As far as I know, you can't specify the license metric in the Discovery model, the DMAP, nor the software Model.  Only in the alm_license or Software Product Definition table.   So after normalizing your discovery, where do you ensure the Discovered models will be covered with the correct license metric?  Just saying it's an unlicensed install without saying what's wrong with the normalization doesn't really help...