Craig,
I don't know whether or not you figured this out, but it is somewhat
rare that someone from Declude posts to this list, and most of the
conversations are between fellow administrators and can span a wide
range of topics. Even you are guilty of this:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg28338.html
As I pointed out, this license issue affects everyone that offers a
service of any sort from a Windows platform. It's not like I'm sharing
recipes...though I'm sure that has happened before around here.
Matt
Craig Edmonds wrote:
ummmmm I thought this was a junk
mail list aimed at discussing Declude?
I did not know it was to rant
about Microsoft stuff?
Shayne (and Kevin),
Rant = on
I see now that under the SPLA program, they seem to indicate in a very
round-about way that you have to use SPLA, in fact, you have to
purchase a separate license per processor for anonymous access to IIS
over the Internet. What a crock of s#*t that is. This is the third
such program that I recall seeing Microsoft push on the down-low trying
to claim some sort of special fees for using IIS on the Internet. It
is clear as day that they don't market their product in a manner
consistent with the SPLA program. They updated their EULA however to
include the following; "Renting, leasing, or lending the Software
(including providing commercial hosting services) is also prohibited."
This means that everyone using IMail, SmarterMail, or whatever app
that runs on a Windows platform and is accessed over the Internet must
switch to SPLA and pay a per-processor monthly license if you provide
services to anyone that is not a part of your immediate company.
Shrink-wrapped agreements like this aren't by default legally
enforceable, especially when a product is marketed one way and the
license says differently. The idea of prohibiting use simply by way of
the type of entity and not the functionality appears to be unfair price
competition, and based on what 99% of the market does with their
software, it may not meet the legal definition of "unconscionable",
making that part of the contract void. The retail software is not
labeled "for hosting providers" and "for single entities", in fact they
only offer one box, and clearly market the software in that box for
hosting Web sites, and they widely make no distinction as to hosting or
single entity use (except for the SPLA site). Limiting fair use
outside of industry norms would have a hard time surviving in court
under a shrink-wrapped license. Microsoft would also have a difficult
time proving harm by using retail Windows Server software by hosting
providers.
To go another step further, Microsoft requires you to be a MCP before
you can join the Microsoft Certified Partner program, or at least one
part of their site says so, and that requires testing and $1,500/year,
but in another part they say that you can be a Microsoft Registered
Member and Microsoft Partner Program Member and qualify. This should
be considered an "adhesion contract" since previously a single copy
without a doubt required an expensive yearly membership and training,
and submitting to even more terms and conditions like agreeing to be
audited at the drop of a hat. Clearly they haven't worked it all out
for themselves. In the following article linked to from their own SPLA
site, they admit to at least past issues:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/9/b/b9b1f066-51c3-4983-9c53-e65ebe104abe/08-05-02_SummitVision_Microsoft.pdf
"In other licensing-program changes, Microsoft has simplified its
contract language, which the vendor thinks will improve compliance with
its terms. Even Microsoft admits that the first version of its license
was so confusing that SPs often didn’t know if they were in compliance
or not."
Again, it's a crock if they want to try forcing this upon SP's.
Essentially they are saying that anonymous connections to IIS need a
special license now, and occasionally in the past when they could
figure out what their own licensing says or means, but only when you
are providing services to third-parties. Of course that also means
that they sell Windows Server Web Edition, but you can't use that for
hosting Internet Web sites for anyone except yourself unless you get it
under SPLA. I think not. Or how about any E-mail, FTP, DNS, Web
server, etc. that runs on top of Windows? They might want to claim
that this is the only legitimate way on the SPLA site, but the reality
clearly is that hosting on the Internet does not require SPLA, even if
you sell services, otherwise thousands of companies products and
millions of their customers would be running on top of an
illegitimately licensed OS. It suggests that products such as Commerce
Server can't be bought at retail and used on the Internet, and it
suggests that the SQL Server per-processor licensing is only for
intranet use even though they clearly state that the license is most
appropriate for Internet use and make no differentiation among the type
of entity, nor do they attempt to make you aware of SPLA. Not
enforcing the terms, nor providing for even basic awareness of the
'proper' program could also make it unenforceable. I think that I'm
done...
Comments on forums are all over the place on this. One claimed for
instance that a MS rep from the SPLA program told him that SPLA was
only required if you leased servers to third-parties, but not for
providing hosting services. I'm not even sure that they can force that
as a condition. Clearly SPLA is optional, at least from a legally
enforceable standpoint. I would not put it past Microsoft to try
claiming something that they knew couldn't be enforced, and that they
wouldn't even try to enforce it despite their claims This thread
pretty much sums it all up:
http://forums.webhostautomation.com/viewtopic.php?t=13929.
Microsoft's reps still don't know what's going on, and the story also
changes depending on which page on their site you read.
I did find the pricing sheet from who apparently a leader in SPLA
licensing, Software Spectrum:
http://www.softwarespectrum.com/microsoft/Advisor/docs/MS_SPLA.xls
The prices are reasonable at these levels if you are using
single-processor machines and stay away from licensing SQL Server this
way ($169/month, but they sell a per-processor license at retail that
goes fairly cheap in comparison on eBay). Windows Server Standard 1
Processor goes for $18/month, and that's a reasonable price since it is
about the same cost over 3 1/2 years for their retail software. The
low upfront costs is a benefit for a single processor system, but it is
not competitive for a dual-processor system. I'm going to keep this in
mind should there be a opportunity to use this model (leased servers,
big build-out), but I think I am going to start investing more in Linux
due to my fear of my business getting trapped by a monopoly of this
sort that changed their offering multiple times over the last 5 years.
Thanks for the info.
Matt
Shayne Embry wrote:
Matt,
I think as you continue your investigation you'll find that Microsoft
states the only type of "legal" licensing for hosting services is the
Service Providers License. We discovered this not-so-well publicized
fact last year. It requires a monthly licensing fee. I won't go into
all the details here (I'm at home and don't have convenient access to
info at my office), but it could very easily cost you more depending on
your situation. MS SQL can definitely take a painful bite out of a
budget. It's different from the Open License program, which we also did
about four years ago.
If you don't get some answers elsewhere, please mail me off list and
I'll try to get you more details on Monday.
Shayne
From: Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:19 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
I'm considering changing over to Microsoft's Open License program, but
I
haven't actually spoken to a reseller yet about the terms. I'm hoping
that someone here could give me an idea about the prices that one would
pay for Windows 2003 Standard and MS SQL 2000 for around 5 to 10 total
licenses. Currently I own full retail versions of all of my software,
but it seems that there might be a better and more flexible way to do
this, and I might be able to convert my current licenses (???). This is
a hosting setup and not a workplace installation. I have seen talk of
prices at around $12/month for Windows 2003 Web Edition, but I am not
sure what the rest of the pricing might be.
Please respond off list if you don't feel it is appropriate for a
public
forum.
Thanks,
Matt
---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.
|
