Floating Licenses require less administration overhead.
The current model for VersionOne licensing causes wasteful administrative effort as people join and leave teams.
VersionOne should allow the purchase of floating licenses and implement a license key server to go with that approach so that we don't have to waste time administering accounts.
Customers will pay more for a floating license because of the flexibility and low administrative overhead.
Most of your competitors in the SW tools arena provide this licensing model as an option.


  • I may be missing what is outlined here, but we haven't had any issues with managing our licensing - it takes less than a second to inactivate a user. I would not be that in favor of floating licenses at this point especially if it brings higher cost. We also like to keep our V1 server isolated so it would not have access to a central licensing server hosted by V1. So, this would put me doubly against this. But, I guess that's just our situation.

  • The cost is lower, because users only consume a license when they are actually logged in. In this way, the floating licenses are "pooled across users" instead of pinned to one user. The floating licenses are more useful and get more usage and that is why they cost a little more. It actually helps solve a people problem where an infrequent user consumes an expensive license even when they don't use it very often. A license key server can typically run as a background task or service on the same box that VersionOne is running on, so the server is a logical entity, not a physical one. There is no added exposure since it all would run locally within that server.
    It takes less than a second to add a user, but the process of communicating that, determining the roles and permissions and working with the byzantine license key purchase process for software licenses from VersionOne definitely consumes more than one second.

  • With over 850 licenses, this is the most significant administrative issue that we face. As stated in the posting, we would not ask that the current licensing model be deprecated, simply give us an enterprise option on the licensing.

  • This would be especially useful for environments with both full-time and casual V1 users, like ours. We have "casual" support analysts who must funnel requests through a few colleagues so as not to eat up a license full-time. Network licensing would allow them to access V1 themselves, even if it's only intermittent compared to our developers and testers.

  • I think that the "Anonymous report access" request would be unnecessary if this were implemented.

  • Constantly asking our V1 admin how many licenses we have left to allocate, and to whom they are allocated is annoying to me, the end-user. I can only imagine the pain the V1 admins feel on a daily basis dealing with these requests and the management of users in our multitude of V1 instances.

    The license server would need to be local and not outside of company firewalls.

    In addition, as mentioned above, this would potentially reduce the need for "anonymous report access" and, potentially, for the removal of the "V1 requestor" extension. Allowing many folks within the organization to seamlessly enter V1 and submit requests against our products would be a huge productivity improvement.

    Finally, allowing more people access to the V1 instances we have (to submit requests or look at reports, depending on privileges) would be free "advertising". Once they see the slick reports and how easy requests are to submit, they're more likely to use V1 for their software projects... and the number of floating licenses required would grow as they bring more projects into the V1 fold! Win-win!

  • Please support floating licenses. Floating licenses would allow better use of the product in our team. It would most likely result in more licenses purchased as the product becomes more endemic to our process 9with everyone using it). The way it is now, only two people have access to the product - everyone else is not able to use it - building a business case for the entire team to buy the product is not likely. Thanks.

  • I have 700+ users and a floating license would be great. Keeping track of who paid, when they paid and if they are violating licenses is too hard.

    Another aspect of this is the poor administration features in VersionOne esp. with regards to roles and permissions.

  • We have a need to have a large number of occasional / info only users at a price that reflects their limited and irregular use of the product. In particular around the self service functionality around requests. The idea portal falls short on funtionality.

  • REALLY need this flexibility!

  • Floating licenses are really necessary in case of large number of potential users. Not sure why it is not already addressed.

  • This would be an incredibly helpful feature! Top of my list.

  • It sure does take a long time for really great ideas to be voted on...

  • This would be a game changer for V1 at our company. PLEASE implement this!

  • We are moving off VersionOne specifically because of the high licensing costs. Overall the product has performed well for our team with the exception of test management and lack of effective TFS integration but it is significantly more than competing products (almost 2X) and with over half of our users only occasional users, this licensing model is just not workable.

  • Andrew - considering deleting or disabling users who aren't using the system. That way you only pay for who uses it.

  • I have been asking for this for years. Most of our other software has a license manager and licenses are based on number of users who can be logged in at one time. The management of these systems is so much easier than VersionOne's current license model.