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."
"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.
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
This is where some creative scripting or programming can keep you out of a lot of trouble. If you have 5 Windows licenses, then you must ensure that only 5 people can access those applications. As long as you have positive control and proper documentation, you should be able to sail through any audit. At one of my previous jobs, we used a net-installed version of Wordperfect that had about 20 liscenses for 100 employees. Occassionally, when you went to start the program, you'd get a message saying something like "Sorry, no liscense is available. Currently, there are 4 people waiting. The program will start as soon as a liscense is available."
OK...
I can do this. I am, after all,
a superhero!
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
I interpreted the post to mean just that, that only 5 people at a time would be actually using a license, thus bringing them into compliance.
I believe that is the whole point.
His question rather, I believe, is more about whether MS considers this using 10 licenses, one each on the host terminals and one for each user accessing a host. (AFAIK, this is not the case anyways...he should be just fine using the setup he has come up with).
No Comment.
Microsoft's own Systems Management Server lets you do this as well; install a piece of software on all your desktops, and the SMS client will keep track of who's running it, and deny once you've maxed out your license count until somebody quits.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
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.
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.