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?"

Comments

don't be an idiot

[seigniory]

"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.

Good idea, but prolly violates Microsoft's EULA

[duffbeer703]

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.

Or

[Glonoinha]

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.

DEFINITELY violates Microsoft's EULA

[rpresser]

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.

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.

sounds like bad advice

[g4dget]

"Slashdot said it was OK" ain't gonna hodl up in court. Do yourself a favor and contact an MS licensing rep.

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.