Allow users with a Visual Studio Professional license to use Package Management
This suggestion is migrated to Developer Community. Please use below link to view the current status.
Users with Visual Studio Professional licenses are able to use source control. However, they are not allowed to access any packages stored in VSTS Package Management. In order to do development, they need to be able to access the packages stored in Package Management. This requires all developers to have a VS Enterprise license or an additional license for Package Management needs to be purchased for all of our developers. This licensing model doesn't make sense. Please fix the license model or we will use an alternate solution.
+1 on this ... makes no sense that we'd need to give the exact same developers a license to use Nuget packages. this should come with a pro license.
It's incredible, doing this way it's like to say: PLEASE MICROSOFT PEOPLE, INSTALL NEXUS BECAUSE ALL THE MONEY YOUR PAID FOR TSF IS NOt ENOUGH!
Ata Qureshi commented
What would be interesting to know is what the benefit is of using Azure Artifacts over having my own private NuGet server. Afterall, it is a doddle to spin up a NuGet server. Why would I then want to pay for this feature in TFS? Most developers in my organisation have a Professional License and just a handful have an Enterprise license and the Professional license does not cover this feature.
Jason Edstrom commented
I have had to deploy a Nexus Sonatype server for the sole purpose of hosting NuGet and Maven packages for my peers without increasing our license cost. There is no justifiable reason why Pro license users are not allowed to consume items in Azure DevOps package management.
Todd Walstad commented
Agreed, pro should be able to consume, paid and enterprise to publish. Like others, all our devs have pro licenses. We are looking for other options due to this limitation.
Michael Dang commented
I agree this should be a simple change for all PRO licenses to consume this feature. How hard is it to change? A reply from MS explaining the business case for this would be most insightful.
Robert Dineen commented
Any updates? There is no reason for a consumer of a Package Management feed to require VS Enterprise licensing. Licensing would be reasonable for managing feeds, but, not consuming.
Ditto, the requirement for a VS Enterprise licence makes no sense whatsoever, VS Pro should have access to download/restore packages; as others have pointed out this is a showstopper when considering this extension.
Bart Rosseel commented
Definitely this licensing model is currently a showstopper to start using Package Management. Consuming packages and symbols should be free or at most included in Community or Professional license. VS Enterprise only, or the separate Package Management license fee are too costly. Please review your licensing model asap.
Companies can not afford to purchase VS enterprise license for all developers. May be one or 2 can have enterprise license and be able to publish packages in feeds. but rest mostly will have VS professional license. Request Microsoft to re-think and re-organize the license model for accessing/referencing Package management feeds to Professional license users.
Ritwick Jana commented
Request you to consider the points discussed here and allow access to package management for VS professional users through a simplified licensing model. Package management feature improvement in TFS 2018 is of no use unless the license support is available for the enterprise users who work on .NET technologies and on-prem solutions. With Microsoft's continuation of complex licensing model is a big deterrent in considering Visual Studio as a single tool for all developmental needs in future.
Pavel Pokutnev commented
Hello Package Management team,
please rethink the license model for the Package Management. In case of the VSTS it makes somehow sense, since the VSTS hosts everything. But in case of the TFS On-Premise it is complete disaster. The first aspect is, everything is hosted On-Premise, so no additional costs for Microsoft. What is the legitimization for additional license costs per user in this case? The second aspect is its extreme complicated license model. You need either to have your TFS On-Premise instance connected to the internet and its Azure subscription to be able to use Marketplace. (Already this is very complicated for fully isolated TFS instances.) Or you need to have special enterprise agreement in place. This is also very challenging for different companies with long dissension chains. This requires involvement of a handful different departments (finance, sourcing, IT, project management, …), and makes the implementation of the Package Management unnecessary complicated.
Caleb Jenkins commented
This would really make more sense as a server licence, not a client access licence. :-/
Maybe Enterprise to publish? But even that seems frustrating.
Leonard Lewis commented
Agreed. The licensing model makes no sense. We just purchased 23 Visual Studio subscriptions, 20 VS Pro and 3 VS Enterprise... That's huge money, and we've been faithful MSDN subscribers for the 13+ years I've been with the company.
Why should 20 out of 23 developers (all paid VS subscribers) be required to pay extra to access an on-premises service that we spin up to host our own packaged code—when everyone can access third-party packages on NuGet.org for free?
Michiel Cornille commented
Yes please! Just picked up a backlog item to create a private package feed, but I can't access it due to license... makes no sense!