yes, I wasn't thinking of transfer of actual license ownership... I was only thinking in terms of within a single org or home. I can see by what Aaron posted, transfering to another owner seems a horrid process!!
Also, being able to and encouraged to give linux to anyone and everyone, how great that is!! :) David McD On 4/21/05, Brian Henning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Argh. My most recent sendmail installation was installed a bit TOO tight... > That last message from me should have gone out a couple hours ago.. heh > heh... > > Anyhoo. Aaron has certainly shed some interesting light on the issue of > transferrability of MS licenses. I imagine even more of my questions could > be answered if I reread the EULAs more carefully myself. > > Actually, in my original post, the [non-] transferrability I was alluding to > was specifically for Client Access Licenses. Perhaps they transfer > automatically as needed, and perhaps permanent CALs behave differently than > temporary CALs (at least as far as Terminal Services), but when I use the TS > Licensing management app, I see zero actions that can be performed on an > existing license. No releasing, no transferring. Granted, however, that > all I have right now are temporary TS CALs. Next week I'll have some > permanent paid-for TS CALs to experience, and see if they're transferrable > from one client connection to another (i.e. will two permanent CALs allow > ANY two machines to be connected at a given time, or ONLY two machines to > ever be connected?...). > > As far as transferring an OS license.. Perhaps the EULA allows for it, but > certain versions (namely OEM) of the Product Keys only allow you to activate > for ONE machine and ONE machine only. Transferring that license would have > to involve a probably headache-generating call to MS Customer Support. > Which is why I'm rallying for Open Licensing at my workplace. No > activations, so internal transferral of licenses is [read: should be] a > snap. > > ~B > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Aaron S. Joyner > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:08 PM > To: Triangle Linux Users Group discussion list > Subject: Re: [TriLUG] Microsoft to support Linux > > David McDowell wrote: > > >I'm in no way trying to rant... so please know this is light and curious. > :) > > > >I'm curious what you mean by non transferrable?? I can take any > >server I have, take it out of commission, replace with a completely > >new server and use the same license. That is transferrable. > > > > > But can you "Transfer" it to someone else? Can you give away or sell > that which you have purchased to another individual? From Microsoft's > Windows XP Professional EULA: > > > 4. TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different > > Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove > > the Product from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third > > Party. The initial user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of > > the Product to another end user. The transfer has to include all > > component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and if > > applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The transfer may not be > > an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, > > the end user receiving the transferred Product must agree to all the > > EULA terms. No Rental. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide > > commercial hosting services to third parties with the Product. > > So the net result there being you can, with out a whole lot of hassle, > transfer the license. Oh, but only once. And only with some strings > about not being able to host or lease on XP Pro. Let's go back in time > a bit farther to Windows 2000 Pro: > > > Software Product Transfer. You may permanently transfer all of your > > rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of > > the HARDWARE, provided you retain no copies, you transfer all of the > > SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including all component parts, the media and printed > > materials, any upgrades, this EULA and, if applicable, the > > Certificate(s) of Authenticity), and the recipient agrees to the terms > > of this EULA. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade, any transfer > > must also include all prior versions of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. > > So with 2k we can't transfer it at all, unless it goes with the machine > (98SE was very similar as well). But there's no draconian limitations > about what we can and can't do with it in terms of providing hosting to > other customers. Guess they hadn't thought that up yet. :) How about > Windows 2000 Server? Let's take a peak: > > > Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Product may make a > > one-time transfer of the Product to another end user. The transfer has > > to include all component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, > > and if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The transfer may > > not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the > > transfer, the end user receiving the transferred Product must agree to > > all the EULA terms. No Rental. You may not rent, lease, or lend the > > Product. > > So here's where the "may not rent, lease or lend" verbiage started to > creep in. Note that we also can't transfer but once in 2k Server. > There are similar niceties about being able to move it from device to > device internal in your corporation just before the 3rd party parts, as > was in the XP license quoted above. > > I tried to find a copy of the Server 2003 licensing, but I was unable to > google one up. I suspect it's more draconian than the XP licensing, in > continuing with M$'s strategy of hiring more and more lawyers to cook up > more and more ways to restrict your use of their code, to translate into > more and more money, in ever craftier ways. Then again, I'm a bit of a > biased point of view. :) > > Personally, I'll stick with products that if I like them sufficiently, > and want to use them myself, *encourage* me to give copies to as many > people as I can find. I'd rather have a software provider that is more > interested in my being thrilled with the function of their software, > than how much of my budget I'm willing to spend with them. > > Aaron S. Joyner > -- > TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug > TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ > TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/ > TriLUG PGP Keyring : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc > > -- > TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug > TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ > TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/ > TriLUG PGP Keyring : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc > -- TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/ TriLUG PGP Keyring : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
