Microsoft Adopts Virtual Licenses

* * Beatles-Beatles is one of many to let us know that Microsoft has changed how they handle licensing for Windows Server and related products with regards to virtual machine environments. The new regiment will allow per-processor licensing to be handled based on the number of virtual processors rather than the number of physical processors in the computer.

Comments

My Own Virtual Licensing Scheme

[donnacha]

Great, I guess this means I'll continue to depend upon my own virtual licensing scheme, based on the amount of warez I can download.

Re:My Own Virtual Licensing Scheme

[pallmall1]

I've got a life. I just can't remember what directory it's in.

wow.

[Spy der Mann]

They DID find a way to get even more money from their customers. And when we thought they were over, they finally did something innovative.

This, of course, means war

[oGMo]

I guess the answer for this is to start paying for virtual licenses with virtual money.

Great!

[Cytlid]

This means they'll be accepting virtual money, right?

Re:Great!

[isotope23]

"This means they'll be accepting virtual money, right?"

Yeah, they're called federal reserve notes....

Re:The way this works for windows...

[Joe5678]

This is true, but so is the opposite situation (which is probably more likely a situation).

If you have a four CPU server running 6 virtual OS's, if you only want SQL Server on one of those OS's you only need one copy, where as before if you wanted it on 1 you had to buy four copies.

MS Virtual PC blogger talks about it here:

[MelloDawg]

http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2005/ 10/10/479186.aspx

Also check out his great series on running old games under Virtual PC.

Obviously a tough decision...

[kaschei]

From TFA:

Under Microsoft's existing licensing policy, the maximum number of licenses that a customer has to buy for one application is equivalent to the total number of processors in the box, Park said.

Microsoft struggled with that fact, said Zane Adam, a director of marketing in the company's Windows Server group.

Translation: "It was a tough call, but we decided not to limit the amount of money we can charge to run the same code. It wasn't an easy decision, but we'll take your money after all."

Re:The way this works for windows...

[malfunct]

More to the point you had to buy a 4 cpu licence for that single virtual server even though most virtual servers only virtualize a single processor and so you were paying the 4 cpu price for a 1cpu equivalent server.

To address the comment about dual core processors I am pretty darn sure I read in the past that Microsoft had adopted a policy of treating a single dual core processor as 1 cpu and not 2.

Re:How will this work for Windows?

[BrynM]

I'm not sure if this new system covers that situation or not.

Exactly. Licensing gets easier under the new system, which most people postig seem to have missed (RTFA people).

As you said, under the old system, you were charged for each processor. Thus, a server with two physical processors was charged for two processor licenses for SQL Server even though you were only running it on one. The situation now lets you simply purchase a single license for each CPU you are _actually running it on_. Despite everyone shouting greed, this is a rare occasion of MS doing what the customers (Corp Customers) have been asking for for a long time.

For those that didn't read the article.

[Deathlizard]

1) This change affects only virtual processors, not physical ones. If your running VMWare or MS Virtual Server than this is for you. Otherwise move along.
2)This licencing scheme is designed to save companies money instead of giving up more for MS. For example, say you have a 16 processor system, and you VMWare it so your running 4 instances of Windows Server 2003 with SQL server. under the old system, you had to buy SQL Server for all 16 Processors. Now you would only buy for the 4 VM's
3) Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition is now licenced for 4 instances of itself per Machine. So you could run 4 Windows 2K3 Servers VM's on one server and MS says "go for it"

The Details from the Horse at MS

Re:For those that didn't read the article.

[nachoboy]

True, and thank you for the clarification - But you've overlooked one particular group of users that might earn the sympathy of a Slashdotter or two - Developers.

In a mid-to-large business environment, you might well break a 16-way system up into four 4-way virtual machines. In a dev enviromenment, however, we frequenly do the exact opposite - Try to simuate conditions of 16 systems on a single physical RAM-heavy 4-way machine.

So what effect does this have, on the development side? Exactly one - Small-time developers (meaning any person/group/company with a single-digit number of physical (not virtual) human members) will now have a much harder time (legally) developing software that scales up well. Not that most dev teams bother with licensing, but still, most people prefer running legal...

Congratulations, Microsoft - With a single cryptic (and spinnable) change in server licensing, you have destroyed any legal "enterprise" level development by individuals, small teams, or anyone with a budget where "Taco Bell" counts as a significant budgetary line item.

If Microsoft really wanted to give up profit, they could have, with a single license clause, capped the cost at the physical CPU equivalent. But, oddly enough, they didn't. Hmm...

These licensing changes are for companies who are using virtualization in production environments. If you are even a small-time developer, it makes sense for you to purchase an MSDN subscription (prices range from about $500 to $2500 for a year, depending on the products you need). MSDN recently included Virtual Server amongst its offerings. A few points about MSDN subscriptions:

- You subscribe for one year, which gives you a starter set of all software on CD/DVD, plus 12 months of updates mailed to you and access to the download site.
- MSDN licenses are *perpetual*. Even after your subscription lapses, all the software you have is still fully licensed and legal. It can even be resold (must go as an entire unit though).
- Retail subscriptions come with retail keys, which generally means 10 activations. If you ever run out, though, I've found you can just give them a ring and they'll give you another key to use. Subscriptions purchased under volume licenses come with volume license keys and no activation.
- The license is a free-for-all for development and test purposes. From the EULA: "For purposes of designing, developing, testing, and demonstrating your software product(s) ... Microsoft grants you a limited, nonexclusive, royalty-free license to make, use, and install the Server Software for any individual Server Software on any number of Servers."

None of these licensing changes affect developers who are running software for development and testing purposes. Accuse Microsoft of gouging real customers if you must, but developers get a pretty sweet deal with MSDN.

Good for them

[nacs]

This kind of thing only benefits opensource so I approve. The more ridiculous their licensing gets, the more businesses will look to open source solutions ( Linux + Xen or Linux + UML, etc).

I love this quote from the article:

The shift will benefit customers, Microsoft says.

Higher prices 'benefit' consumers. I'll have to remember that one. </sarcasm>

Re:Good for them

[StikyPad]

Except you're thinking of it bass ackwards..

Bob Armstrong, managing director of IT at Delaware North Cos. in Buffalo, N.Y., said he hasn't even evaluated running SQL Server in a virtual environment because of the license fees that would be required. Armstrong noted that with a virtualized quad-processor system, Delaware North would have to pay for four instances of the databases under Microsoft's previous policy, even if it used only two processors for SQL Server. "We were waiting for the change," he said.

They're not talking about virtual processors, they're talking about the number of actual processors used to run the virtual OS.

Re:Good for them

[Anonymous Coward]

Once more for Mr. Leap-to-conclusion mat:

- This is a pay for what you use deal under virtualization, e.g. customers now buy fewer licenses in most scenarios

- Microsoft supports 1 license per physical CPU. The story is still somewhat inconsistent with Oracle, IBM, etc (try getting a straight answer from Oracle)

Sure, no problem

[Diabolus777]

I'll just pay them with virtual money

1 Copy != 1 Price ?

[eikonos]

Why does one copy of Windows cost more if you have more CPUs, since it's still only one copy of Windows? That's like buying a whole pizza where the price is based on the number of slices it's cut into. A pizza cut into 6 slices would cost $6, but the same pizza cut into 10 slices would cost $10.
It really should be 1 CD & 1 Product Key = 1 price.

Re:Well...

[James_Aguilar]

RTFA? It will reduce costs for most companies.

Re:Well...

[imr]

On slashdot we only virtually read the articles, that's our policy.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I RTFA, and here's my take on it:

If I have a 4 way box running 3 Windows VMs, I owe MS for 3 single CPU licenses (before I owed them for one 4 way license, more expensive).

If I have a 4 way box running 6 Windows VMs, I owe MS for 6 single CPU licenses (a 4 way license is cheaper than 6 singles)

According to TFA, you would never run more servers than CPUs in protection. That is utter bullcrap. ESX scales to 10 servers on a 2 way box according to VMware. I have a GSX box running on a 2 way box, and I have 6 production boxes using 25% of the CPU at any given time. That means I could scale to 15 with little trouble. In other words, this new scheme costs me more, a LOT more, than it did before.

So yeah, MS is screwing us. They're just either misinformed or hoping the readers are.

Lawn Mower Analogy

[serutan]

I only mow my lawn about every two weeks. My neighbor across the street mows his every week. Shouldn't he have to pay twice as much for a mower as I do?

If software companies are allowed to control "their property" in this way, I don't see why sellers of physical products won't eventually do the same thing. Instead of buying a product and owning it, you'll merely be buying a license to use it for a certain amount of time. Then the license will expire and you'll either have to renew it or throw the product away. Tell me how this is different from what software companies are already doing?