Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

IBM Unlicensed Installs

Reviewing IBM Unlicensed installs.  Confused as what I'm finding is the devices in question (not reporting as licensed) are in fact consuming the entitlement in question.  The devices are all allocated.  The only commonality is that the devices Flexera is reporting as unlicensed do not show the license name as the other devices consuming from this entitlement do.  Why would this happen and how do I correct it.  They keep showing up week after week as unlicensed installations.


(5) Replies
By Technical Writer
Technical Writer

Can you provide screenshots of where you see the device is allocated to the license and where you are seeing the license not reported on the device?

Attaching a snip of the report I dumped and a screenshot of a couple of the devices that are in fact allocated, consuming the license, yet show as unlicensed installs on the report.  I can show consumption if audited so not concerned about that.  I would just like them to show the license they are consuming against.  The apps are "primary" on this entitlement.   Maybe I'm missing something.

The doc you attached appears to be a custom report that shows the application, device, and license. So the issue is that some devices have no license displayed despite the device consuming a license for the application? Is the customer report built using the Installation and the Assigned License objects or another way? 

The report was a FlexeraOne canned report "Applications & License Installations"

I'm opening a case on this because this continues and weekly I am having to mitigate the same licensing over and over again