Slashdot Mirror
Windows Licensing and Win4Lin Terminal Servers?
miguelk asks: "I'm helping a company (in Brazil) legalize their desktop operating system licenses by migrating to Linux on the desktop. WINE was tried but unfortunately did not work out for this particular case, so the idea is to install a Linux server with Win4Lin Terminal Server for 5 users, since the company has 5 Windows98 licenses to use for this purpose. All of the other 50+ desktops would be running Linux and would access these 5 licenses as needed, whenever they use a legacy Windows application. I have a question about the legal aspect of using the Windows desktop remotely. From all I have researched so far, this is legal since the actual Windows code will be installed on only one computer and will not be loaded in RAM on any other computer. I see it as equivalent to having 5 PCs on a desk and users walking up and using whatever PC happens to be available. I suspect that a direct, unprepared question to Microsoft is not a good idea, so I want to prepare first. Can anybody comment on this solution or share their experiences?"
How many Windows licenses do I need to have?
One Win 9x/ME license per active user
Now, defining "active user" is the fun part, isn't it? It sounds like what you're trying to do is within the bounds here, but then again, IANAL. If the MS EULA is hazy for VNC then who the hell knows.
Looks like it's so far so good for netraverse tho.
So I wonder if raw WINE use is less robust than, say, something like Lindows?
[Don't quote me, but IIRC from a few years ago, "remote control by variable different people" of any MS software seems like it is addressed in their licenses in a prohibitive fashion...unless they all have a license:)]
"Provided by the management for your protection."
i dont have alot of legal backing on this, but the lab i work at is set up almost the same way. the only liscences we have are for the main machines in the north lab, all the machines on the floors below it, around 60 or so, access the top machines when using any windows program. we have micorsoft recruiters come here and talk to students all the time, they're always in the lab, i think if it was a problem either #1, they would notice or #2, the school would have had problems when the acedemic computing department decided to set the lab up that way. again, i dont have any legal proof for the opinion, but i hope it helps.
"Slashdot said it was OK" ain't gonna hodl up in court. Do yourself a favor and contact an MS licensing rep.
Most OEM versions of 98 were tied to the PC, meaning you couldn't legally move them to another PC. This is fixed recently, but the older licences, I'm sure, still hold.
My EULA states allowing others to access the system remotley in order to avoid purchasing a license is a violation. So you'll need a license for every desktop which will access the system.
Running any remote desktop from a client to a windows server requires one user license per active session. If 50 people need to use the app at the same time, you need 50 licenses.
Those licenses are not available for Windows 9x, but you could probaly purchase Windows 2000/XP terminal access licenses and not be considered in violation.
It does not matter where the processing is being done -- a user is a user.
You would be better off advising your customer to either ditch the legacy app, or bite the bullet and buy 50 Windows XP Pro licenses at about $100/per.
When they compare what you are charging them to build & support this terminal server system, Microsoft is prolly cheaper.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
No offense intended, but I doubt Microsoft is worried about a small shop in Brazil. Do whatever you want in the short term, in the long term try to migrate away completely. I wouldn't fret about it.
Rather than address the original question, I will dig deeper to understand the true issue.
You are actively searching for a way to get the machines at your company running in a productive manner on any OS in any means other than running any legitimately licensed Windows OS.
This choice is driven purely by financial decisions.
You are jumping through hoops in order to run the programs you want to run, that happen to run on Windows nicely, but don't want to (can't) purchase enough licenses of Windows OS's for all the machines.
You don't particularly dislike Windows, you just have already decided not to buy any more copies at $300 apiece.
The economy in the country in which you live and operate is so shattered that buying licenses at the current price is impossible. Much like the situation in China(?) we read about here the other day (no I am not going to look it up.)
Microsoft recognized the issue in China and is offering massive discounts over there if they will go legit. My suggestion - figure out what that price is, convert it to your local currency to determine a price per license, go out and actually buy a NEW legit single copy/license (pay $300 or $500 or whatever it costs for that particular version) and then do the math : however many licenses that would have given you in China, use that many.
If it helps your consience any, use an older (unsupported) OS like Win95 or NT4.0 on those machines, figure that the discounted pricing gets you older outmoded warez - but in a round-about way you did pay your fair share.
If the SPA hassles you, invite them for an on-site inspection and tell the local drug lords that they are DEA agents. That will pretty much keep you off the SPA mailing lists.
If anybody else give you any grief, tell 'em I said it was ok.
BillG
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item =3405452010&category=11229
Or just buy a bunch of seats of older licenses (if you can't afford the OS, odds are the hardware is a little old - no offense) from eBay - for the amount of hassle per seat just buy a legit license for each one and be done with it. I went to eBay and did a search on 'windows license' and found several under $10.
Lets face it, if you could just run a legit copy of NT4.0 or Win9x on each machine you would be a LOT happier.
Or at least that is what I got from your question.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
As I have read the EULA what he wants to do is not legal here is the relevant piece of the EULA. Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your other COMPUTERS over an internal network; however, you must acquire and dedicate a license for each separate COMPUTER on or from which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed, used, accessed, displayed or run. A license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be shared or used concurrently on different COMPUTERS. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any number of COMPUTERS may access or otherwise utilize the file and print services and peer web services of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. In addition, you may use the "Multiple Display" feature of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to expand your desktop as described in the on-line Help file, without obtaining a license for each display. So if you are trying to abide by the EULA, they will need to but a license for each machine.
I think you have the germ of an idea.
/. could do it -it would be an interesting experiment to see if many vendors would accept limitations on their EULA in exchange for free well targeted ads.
Suppose an organization like ACM had a scheme to distribute (selected) ads to (participating) members for free but with the condition that any resulting transations would be subject to consumer-friendly limitations on the EULA.
Maybe
Also, Microsoft's licensing is often so complex, even Microsoft reps cannot answer licensing questions. I once worked for a Certifed MS Solution Provider, being one of the MCSEs which enabled the shop to qualify for such status. MS has these bundles of software, designed to allow solutions providers to run reasonable numbers of copies of most software so that they could better serve customers. One day we called into the regional MS office to ask a question about the licensing, to see if we were in compliance. The guy we spoke to didn't know, so we got bounced around for weeks until we were too disgusted to pursue it further. We eventually decided that we had exhibited "due dilligence" and felt we were in compliance.
In any event, use the worst case scenario (cost-wise) for determining the number of client licenese to purchase.
The advice we were given by a MS sales guy: Got five actual PCs but a hundred potential users? Purchase a hundred licenses. Got a hundred machines, but only five employees? Purchase a hundred licenses.
Method of processing duck feet
Microsoft sells something they call a Client Access License (CAL). You must purchase a CAL for every user who will be accessing the Terminal Server server. Each instance of MS Windows you purchase comes with a CAL, so the 5 MS Win licenses you have means that you effectively own 4 CALs that could be used remotely less the 1 license you need to run the server with.
Things get a little more complicated than this with Terminal Server, as Microsoft's USED to sell concurrent licenses for their Office products, but they NO LONGER sell concurrent licenses. This means that you will also have to purchase one Office license for every user who will access Office through Terminal Server. This results from MS's EULA statement where they declare that you are not allowed to "share" a license. Having 10 people take turns using 5 Office licenses involves "sharing".
As has already been noted by another poster, the safest position for a company to take w.r.t. Windows and Office licences is to ensure that they have purchased sufficient licenses to cover every possible PC/user that could possibly use/access Windows or Office. You then have to perform enough due diligence that if MS ever audits you that you can defend the position you have taken regarding the number of licenses you acquired.
For example, in your 100 person company: if you have some Linux file/compute servers in your server room, then you can safely risk not purchasing MS licenses for those PCs; however, if the 100 Linux users are able to access the Terminal Server server through your LAN, then even if you have put passwords on the server you would still have to purchase 100 CALs and 100 Office licenses to keep yourselves out of court following an audit as MS could claim that users sometimes share passwords and that there was no possible way you could guarantee that only a subset of the 100 users accessed the server.
Your best bet is to not use Terminal Server, but rather to purchase 5 extra PCs that are located in common areas and the users share access to---and those 5 PCs are the only computers that have Windows and Office installed on them. Then, when someone needs to use PowerPoint, they walk over to one of the Windows PCs and do their PowerPoint. In that manner you eliminate the audit risk and cap your investment in MS products.
WRONG.
MS Windows 2000 Terminal Server's license explicitly makes it clear that each device connecting to a Terminal Server needs its own Client Access License. Licenses are not "per active user"; they are "per active machine", where "active" means "is being used by this company" -- this month, this year, whatever. You are only allowed to reclaim and reassign licenses when a device goes out of service permanently.
Similar remarks apply at least in spirit to every single one of MS's current products. MS rejected the "per connection" license model years ago and has firmly refused to entertain returning to it.
You Lose.
A (now defunct) company called VEGA Technologies (link points to archive.org cache) used to make a product called 'Buddy', which was basically an ISA card with a cheap video card and a PS/2 bus for a keyboard and mouse. It allowed two users to use the same PC simultaneously. I don't think they ever got in trouble for it, and they are doing something fairly similar to what you want to do.
Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)
If I were you, I would not be in a hurry to admit to an interpretation which favors MS, especially in circumstances where 1) you are probably unlikely to get sued or otherwise hassled; and 2) you may well be within your rights by running with 5 user licenses. Do not ask anyone at MS for advice, ask your own lawyer.
To quote Jon Stewart: "Whaaaaaaaaaaa?!"
They don't even know how their own product is used legally? That's kinda scary. Honestly tho, I wish you the best of luck!
The MS licensing rep isn't going to give any legally binding commitments, he is just going to try to talk people into as many licenses as they can afford by applying just the right amount of arm twisting.
Most OEM versions of 98 were tied to the PC, meaning you couldn't legally move them to another PC.
Companies write all sorts of restrictions into their licenses that wouldn't hold up in court. Do you have any proof that this restriction would hold up?
Altogether, since you are never going to get the licensing rep to resolve an ambiguity in the contract in a legally binding way that's in your favor (at least not for free), talking to him is useless. The best you can get out of an ambiguity is plausible deniability, and, sure, it makes a lot of sense to ask anybody but Microsoft about that.
I think that Codeweavers has a very good explanation regarding licensing considerations for a Linux TS server hosting MS apps, with many points that apply to your proposed environment. The most important thing they clarify is that application licensing is based upon device count (PC's, thin clients, pda's, whatever) that attach to the terminal server. http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxofficeserver /mslicensing.php
However, one significant difference between Netraverse (Win4Lin) and CodeWeavers (Terminal Server) is that Codeweavers are using their own Windows API's to run the programs and Netravers is using Microsofts. My understanding of MS licensing is that if you want to use MS's api's you need to ALSO buy a copy of Windows OS for each device (see above definition) that will attach to the server.
Licensing proof is considered a Licensing Certificate, Electronic Licensing agreement (eMolp), serialized media, or invoice. Purchase orders could be challenged during a software audit unless they can be tracked back to an invoice number.
miguel,
I'm curious, what software are you having problems with under WINE? Maybe all you need is some configuration advice instead of additional licenses.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Seriously tho, you gotta watch out, you don't wanna get your butt in trouble. Someone said in a thread, that talking to an M$ Rep, he said 'if you have 100 people but 5 computers, buy licenses for 100 people.. If you have 100 computers but 5 people, buy licenses for 100 computers.' this isn't the first I've heard of it. Infact, we thought that we didn't have to buy 300 licenses for the 300 people we had, only 250 for the 250 computers we had. Not only did our licensing guy say we should get 300 licenses, so did our laywer.. to 'avoid possiable legal trouble' its almost as if microsoft wants 1 license per 1 person using a pc. Its quite sad. Your best bet, would be talk to Microsoft Sales Rep, THEN talk to an industry lawyer THEN talk to a few people who went thru the licensing hassels and THEN weigh out all the problems you might face. I'd say it might be config problem with your wine tho, you may not even have to use M$ at all. But development time is costly, mainly weight out your options, find out whats best for you.
OEM = illegal, its tied to the hardware, forever.
...
OLD WIndows = Legal, if you stick with 1 licence per concurrrent user.
NEW Windows = illegal, they have restrictions againts remote viewing/control
That said, if you dont talk to a REAL lawyer, and get it in writing so THEY are responsible.. you are an idiot..
---- Booth was a patriot ----