I don't have all the details on this, but I'm putting this out to the
world in the hope someone sees a positive way out.

I have a customer who has two CSI's.  This came about because they
bought a database EE development and runtime license for Oracle through
a third party, then eventually started paying Oracle directly for
support under it.  Later, they bought a different named user EE license
for database, developer and OAS.  They decided they didn't like OAS for
current projects and don't use it.

Now, they want to only pay support for the EE license, and don't want
to pay support for the OAS license.  However they don't want to give up
the OAS database EE license, as they paid many thousands of dollars for
it.  They are familiar with the charges for reinstating a lapsed
support contract.

Oracle won't renew just one CSI, as they claim it is part of a license
set (search for that term at
http://www.oracle.com/support/policies.html and note the "Development
and demonstration licenses available via the Oracle Partner Program or
the Oracle Technology Network are not included in the definition of a
license set." and the next paragraph about Matching Service Levels -
and the effective date), and that there is no contract between Oracle
and the customer because the customer bought the license from a third
party.  Even though they paid Oracle directly for support, before the
effective date of the new support policy.  Oracle will only renew one
CSI if the customer signs an agreement to terminate the named user
licenses, including the named user database license.

Needless to say, customer won't do that and now it's to the lawyers.  I
don't much care who wins, as there is probably even more work for me if
they decide to dump Oracle altogether, but I would rather just continue
supported under Oracle (and would rather not continue unsupported under
Oracle).  So if anyone has any magic incantations to resolve this,
please speak up!

It seems disingenious for Oracle to both be claiming there is no
contract and holding customers to arbitrarily changing support
policies... and to force customers to give up licenses, when it means
the customer might just give up _all_ licenses... and they seem to be
abusing set theory with their licensing :-)

jg