RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License

[Craig Edmonds]

Hi Everyone on the Declude Junkmail Discussion List,   I have to apologise for keeping up this thread, I dont usually have the time to respond to such an extent but the personal insults and flamings I am receiving after asking a simple question leaves me no choice but respond. I myself have a busy web design consultancy and hosting business as well as several portals to run so my time is precious as I am sure is yours, but I cannot let some members of this community think they can smack talk me, even if they are members of this list for many years and are usually positive contributors. Letting them getaway thinking they are the dogs bollox is not right. Now Evans, in response to your comments, I’m generally more of a lurker on this list than an active participant but … Craig, get a life.  >>>>  Hold on a second. Whats your problem? Have I done or said anything personal to you? You tell me to get a life? Do you even know me? How dare you come out with a personal statement like that without expecting some kind of response. I gotta say Evans, you are not doing yourself any favours by blurting out such comments. Is this how you speak to all your clients Evans? Yes, I am a client of yours after buying your IP Plus product on Barry's recomendation and if this is how you conduct yourself then I would not recomend your product to anyone else and would urge Barry to do the same. I am not saying you have to talk to me in a special way, with me being a client, but I have to say that I will be thinking twice about sending you referals in future and recomemnding your product. I didn’t start seeing posts from you until February of this year >>> And so what? I only started using declude on one of my Imail servers in Feb this year becasue after the trial I discovered that the Declude package is a pretty good product and this list, until Matts rant about Microsoft being a monopoly and how he is going to invest more in Linux etc etc..... has been pretty good until now. I have enjoyed reading the posts becasue they have been useful, not useless. The rest of us have been here for many years and have made active contributions to the Declude community.  >>>> Big deal. Do you want a medal? Matts ranting about Microsoft is not a positive contribution to the declude discussion and thats what the list is for. In addition, just becasue you and many of you have been here for many years does not give you or anyone else the rights to belittle me in public with personal comments such as "get a life".   I value the opinions of this group like I do no other.  This community is both broad and deep in their knowledge of all things IT related.  You should be thankful to have becoming a member of this community instead of being a nuisance. >>> What? Be thankful? Eh? I am a client of Declude like the rest of you. I pay an SA like everyone else. I am just as entitled to be on this list as you are. The community broad, yes. The lists themselves no. Peoples personal views on anything other that the declude Junkmail should not be brought into this particluar forum. This list is in place for a sharing of knowledge for the declude junkmail product, not people viewing their own personal opinions.    On top of that you call me a nuisance. Well done Evans.   Please take your accusations and your return receipt requests somewhere else if you can’t play nice with the other children here. >>> Accusations? Return Read Receipts? Firstly I have not accused anyone of doing anything or being anything. I asked a simple question that I thought this was a list aimed at discussing Declude not general discussions and several people including yourself are flaming me for that.   As for the Read Receipts, I did not know that this was such a big issue but seeing that I have not been told in a  nice informative way then I am not going to change my email configuration. You do have the ability to turn them off at your end, so why dont you? If you dont like them, YOU go somewhere else.   Kindest Regards Craig Edmonds 123 Marbella Internet W: www.123marbella.com E : [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Marbella Guide Web Portal W: www.marbellaguide.com E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   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. =========================================   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Evans Martin Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 3:00 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License I’m generally more of a lurker on this list than an active participant but … Craig, get a life.  I didn’t start seeing posts from you until February of this year.  The rest of us have been here for many years and have made active contributions to the Declude community.    I value the opinions of this group like I do no other.  This community is both broad and deep in their knowledge of all things IT related.  You should be thankful to have becoming a member of this community instead of being a nuisance.    Please take your accusations and your return receipt requests somewhere else if you can’t play nice with the other children here.   Evans Martin   EVANS MARTIN  [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOSTING:  http://www.martek.net PROGRAMMING:  http://www.martekware.com   iPlus Info Browser – IPB’s IMail Migration Tool, password browser, reporting suite make IPlus Info Browser something no IMail administrator should be without.  http://www.martek.net/Default.aspx?tabid=96     From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Edmonds Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 3:27 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License Importance: High   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..... http://www.mail-archive.com/declude.junkmail@declude.com/msg28338.html   .....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.   Kindest Regards Craig Edmonds 123 Marbella Internet W: www.123marbella.com E : [EMAIL PROTECTED]   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. =========================================     From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 12:00 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License 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/declude.junkmail@declude.com/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?   Kindest Regards Craig Edmonds 123 Marbella Internet W: www.123marbella.com E : [EMAIL PROTECTED]   ========================================     From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 9:05 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com 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: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com 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.