|
Matt,
Well Matt, all I care about is how to improve the
performance of my declude install, thats what this list is
for.
Probably why this list is called "DECLUDE.JUNKMAIL" not
DECLUDE.CAFE.LETS.TALK.ABOUT.ABOUT.A.WIDE.RANGE.OF.TOPICS.
And Matt, this post.....
.....becasue this list is called DECLUDE.JUNKMAIL, I was
under the impression that it had something to do with the Declude Junkmail
filter, which is why I was interested in finding out what it
was.
So dont try and point fingers at me
mate.
I only caught the last posting of that thread and thought
the ms smtp com had something to do with declude.
DISCLAIMER - This message may contain confidential,
proprietary or legally privileged information and is intended only for the use
of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this
message you are hereby informed that you must not use, disseminate, copy it in
any form or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message
in error please delete it and any copies of it and notify it to the
sender.
AVISO LEGAL - Este mensaje puede contener informacion confidencial, en
propiedad o legalmente protegida y esta dirigida unicamente para el uso de la
persona destinataria. Si usted no es la persona destinataria de este mensaje,
por la presente se le comunica que no debe usar, difundir, copiar de ninguna
forma, ni emprender ninguna accion en relacion con
ella.
=========================================
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.
|
