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

Re:From the FAQ:

[sporty]

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.

Tight usage of industry abbreviations, 10 yard penalty. 1st down.

Re:Good idea, but prolly violates Microsoft's EULA

[gristlebud]

"If 50 people need to use the app at the same time, you need 50 licenses."

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."

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.

Re:Read the EULA

[zulux]

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.

I have my own EULA that all software companied implicitly agree to bt runnin on one of my compuers, it stated the following:

In excange for money, and by use on this computer, the software company agrees to, and warrants, the folowing:
This agreement superceses all previsous agreements.
This software is sold, and not leased or licensed.
This software is a product and is fit for the use it it advertised for.
This agreement does not superved any copy-rights tha software company may have on this product.
The software can be resold, transfered or duplicate under the same laws and regulations that govern the sale, transfer and duplication of published books.

So there, my EULA trumps their EULA because they agreed to it by running on my computer.

If a 'click though' EULA is good for them, it's better for me!

HA!

Re:Read the EULA

[zulux]

You may hold a different opinion, but opinons don't count in issues like this.

I went down the hall to our contract attourney, and he read a bit of the thread and basicall agreed with me. The gist is that all EULA are pretty much have been held to be invalid because they attempt to alter the sale contract without consideraion.

You county may differ than the US, but here in case after case, egrigious cluases in EULA type documents, signs and such have been unenforcable - especually when there is no considersion.

You're attempting to alter the responsibilities of a seller after the transaction is complete.


I sorry, but you're wrong - the transaction takes place when money is exchanged for producet, and not at instation time.