On the one hand, if it that was upheld
as true as you say and enforceable, do you think that would help get rid of all
those fly-by-night hosting companies out there offering unlimited this and
unlimited that with a SQL backend for $9.95 per month?
John T
eServices For You
"Seek, and ye shall
find!"
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 3:07 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
OT: Microsoft Open License
John,
I haven't looked at the SQL Server license, but the Windows 2003 Server
Standard Edition license states:
"Renting, leasing, or lending the Software (including
providing commercial hosting services) is also prohibited."
It makes no difference as to who's software you are using on top of Windows,
just that Windows is the OS.
Clearly Microsoft's intention is to have service providers of any sort running
Windows buy into the SPLA licensing. I don't however believe that it is
enforceable based on the things that I had brought up. Microsoft would
likely lose in court at this point if they tried to press the matter, however,
in the future, things may be different and it is clear that they are laying the
ground work for that.
Matt
John T (Lists) wrote:
That is where the question comes in. I
am not hosting a client or providing a client a service on a server.
I have listened in on a conversation between
a big client of mine and a lawyer and the lawyer’s thought is that I am
providing a package product, in one case a web and e-mail hosting service.
However that package includes DNS services, logs and other items depending on
service level. That package is facilitated by different software provided by
different servers located on various servers. As such, it is that
lawyer’s thought that there is no requirement for a service provider
licensing. In his opinion, where the service provider licensing would come into
affect, no matter what vendor, is when a server or software or what ever is
purchased and/or dedicated and/or designated to a client.
This conversation came up when this
client of mine was having their website rebuilt which would require a MS SQL
server. The question posed was if a client requires say SQL server, and I go
out and purchase and install it and then charge them a premium for it, who owns
it, me or the client. The outcome was that if SPLA was not in existence, then
if I was charging that client a premium for it and never used SQL for anything
else, then the client owned it. However, if I bought it and I used it, and then
offered the client to use it as part of his website, and he had no control over
it and could not connect to it, then I owned it. He said the same with SPLA. If
I used SQL and then allowed his website to use it but he could not connect to
it to run sp or queries and I advertised a hosting service that included SQL to
all at whatever service level, then a SPLA is not used.
John T
eServices For You
"Seek, and ye shall
find!"
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
OT: Microsoft Open License
The popular understanding is exactly the opposite in
fact, but even Microsoft's own reps don't always tell it the same way.
The fact is that anyone hosting "clients" is violating the standard
EULA on Windows since they made that change, and SPLA is required. Whether
or not that is enforceable is an open question.
Matt
John T (Lists) wrote:
Matt, my understanding is that is the
server is hosting multiple web sites for multiple clients, and therefore is not
dedicated to any one client, the SPLA does not apply. If a server is dedicated
for one client, whether that server be for web sites, SQL, ACT, Quickbooks,
whatever, then that server must be licensed via SPLA.
John T
eServices For You
"Seek, and ye shall
find!"
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail]
OT: Microsoft Open License
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.
|
