Make the licensing match what's advertised

[mrsimonemms]

Description

The self-hosted licensing now matches what we advertise, namely:

• Default to free/professional license which allows full access for a specific number of users. Free is for 10 users, pro is for however many their license allows. Internally, this is the "Enterprise" license.
• Fallback to community license, which allows for none of the EE features (except admin dashboard) for an unlimited number of users. Internally, this is the "Team" license.

This introduces the concept of a fallback license, in addition to the default license. It also adds the number of seats to the Enabled call in the licensor. As a workflow, if the license exceeds the number of seats requested in the call, it will try again with the fallback license, which is the community license.

Fallback rules

License type	Fallback allowed
No license (ie, installed via Installer)	Y
Gitpod paid license	N
Replicated community license	Y
Replicated paid license	N

This table shows the fallback rules. It is done so that a user who is paying for Gitpod will have additional users rejected rather than having their service downgraded. It would be a pretty poor user experience if someone was paying for Gitpod, had an additional user sign up and then everyone lost all their premium services.

Gitpod licenses are always considered "paid". Now we are moving to Replicated for most licensing, Gitpod licenses will only be issued to paying customers who cannot use Replicated (eg, SaaS). Replicated has the concept of a community license - if their license is marked as "community", it will allow for fallback.

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #8328
Fixes #6932

How to test

Deploy to a self-hosted instance with a Replicated license. Tests already done:

• Test prebuilds work with <=10 users
• Test new user rejected when paid license has run out of seats
• Test new user accepted when paid license changed to a community license
• Test prebuilds rejected when on community license and > 10 users
• Test prebuilds accepted when community license changed to a paid license with 20 users

Release Notes

 Make the licensing match what's advertised

Documentation

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #8593 (8fdfc65) into main (4580ba9) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 8fdfc65 differs from pull request most recent head a9fb138. Consider uploading reports for the commit a9fb138 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8593   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   11.17%   11.17%           
=======================================
  Files          18       18           
  Lines         993      993           
=======================================
  Hits          111      111           
  Misses        880      880           
  Partials        2        2           

Flag	Coverage Δ
components-gitpod-cli-app	11.17% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

📣 Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more

[mrsimonemms]

/werft run

👍 started the job as gitpod-build-sje-licensing.12

[mrsimonemms]

@geropl I kept the caching of the getUsersCount call as a separate commit, to make it easier for you to check I'm on the right track with what you suggested. Happy to keep as-is or to merge into the other [server] commit - your call

[corneliusludmann]

Great progress, @mrsimonemms! 🙏

Suggestion

I'm totally fine with moving this suggestion to a follow-up PR (since this PR is already a minimum viable change). However, in order to fix #8412 I would suggest the following change:

1. Allow fallback here:
   

   gitpod/components/licensor/ee/pkg/licensor/replicated.go

   Lines 90 to 100 in 9c5a4d0

   	resp, err := client.Get(replicatedLicenseApiEndpoint)
   	if err != nil {
   	return &Evaluator{invalid: fmt.Sprintf("cannot query kots admin, %q", err)}
   	}
   	defer resp.Body.Close()
   	var replicatedPayload replicatedLicensePayload
   	err = json.NewDecoder(resp.Body).Decode(&replicatedPayload)
   	if err != nil {
   	return &Evaluator{invalid: fmt.Sprintf("cannot decode json data, %q", err)}
   	}

2. Return an invalid license that allows fallback here instead of the default replicated license:
   

   gitpod/components/licensor/ee/pkg/licensor/replicated.go

   Lines 118 to 128 in 9c5a4d0

   	if !matchesDomain(lic.Domain, domain) {
   	return defaultReplicatedLicense()
   	}
   	if replicatedPayload.ExpirationTime != nil {
   	lic.ValidUntil = *replicatedPayload.ExpirationTime
   	if lic.ValidUntil.Before(time.Now()) {
   	return defaultReplicatedLicense()
   	}
   	}

3. Allow fallback in case of an invalid license here instead of returning false:
   

   gitpod/components/licensor/ee/pkg/licensor/licensor.go

   Lines 168 to 171 in dd508e3

   	func (e *Evaluator) Enabled(feature Feature, seats int) bool {
   	if e.invalid != "" {
   	return false
   	}

   
   

   gitpod/components/licensor/ee/pkg/licensor/licensor.go

   Lines 186 to 189 in dd508e3

   	func (e *Evaluator) hasEnoughSeats(seats int) bool {
   	if e.invalid != "" {
   	return false
   	}

With this, we can display the result of

gitpod/components/licensor/ee/pkg/licensor/licensor.go

Lines 158 to 165 in dd508e3

	// Validate returns false if the license isn't valid and a message explaining why that is.
	func (e *Evaluator) Validate() (msg string, valid bool) {
	if e.invalid == "" {
	return "", true
	}
	return e.invalid, false
	}

in the admin dashboard and users know why the license is invalid and they still have basic functionality (as you would have with no license).

[corneliusludmann]

Licensor part looks good to me.

ℹ️ I would like to leave the final review of the server part to Team WebApp.

[mrsimonemms]

@corneliusludmann I'll remove the "Fixes" for #8412 and we can continue the discussion there

[geropl]

nit: we usually do not use null but undefined instead. But ignore this for how, we'll have a lint for it shortly.

[mrsimonemms]

@geropl Would you like me to change this? I don't mind - normally, I use undefined as well so I can't understand why I used null

[geropl]

Thx @mrsimonemms , looks good to me!

Did not test the self-hosted setup, though. 😉