Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Microsoft

Windows Licensing and Win4Lin Terminal Servers? 63

Posted by Cliff from the keeping-it-all-kosher dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Licensing and Win4Lin Terminal Servers? More

Windows Licensing and Win4Lin Terminal Servers?

Comments Filter:

  • From the FAQ: (Score:3, Informative)

    by misfit13b ( 572861 ) on Wednesday March 12, 2003 @01:47PM (#5495171)
    This sounds more like a question for sales@netraverse.com than it does for an Ask Slashdot.

    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 [slashdot.org] then who the hell knows.

    Looks like it's so far so good for netraverse tho.

    • Re:From the FAQ: (Score:5, Funny)

      by sporty ( 27564 ) on Wednesday March 12, 2003 @02:01PM (#5495298) Homepage
      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.
    • 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
      • Well, no I don't like Windows at all and I want to run Linux because it will be an 'elegant' solution. Cost is of course a big issue and is what drove the customer to seek a solution. The change today will not be at no cost (installation, training, etc.) but will mena freedom further down the road. The only reason any Windows is still needed is because they have to run technical progams supplied by others (for programming PLCs) that will only run in Windows.

    • Or (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Glonoinha ( 587375 ) on Wednesday March 12, 2003 @02:15PM (#5495425) Journal
      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:From the FAQ: (Score:2, Informative)

      by miguelk ( 657637 )
      Netraverse Sales told me, in writing, to ask Microsoft ;-)
      • 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!

  • Raw WINE? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Wednesday March 12, 2003 @01:51PM (#5495208) Homepage Journal

    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:)]

  • 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.

  • don't be an idiot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by seigniory ( 89942 ) <bigfriggin@m[ ]om ['e.c' in gap]> on Wednesday March 12, 2003 @01:55PM (#5495240)
    "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.
    • In some countries the legality of this clause in the EULA is questionable. In some of those countries courts have ruled that it is ok to (re)sell OEM versions separately even if Microsoft says you can't. You are even free to modify versions that come on a "restore" disk so that they can be used on other PCs.

      Please note that I said "in some countries" so seeking advice as suggested above might be a good thing. Seeking advice from Microsoft might not, because even though courts in those countries have ruled

    • sounds like bad advice (Score:3, Insightful)

      by g4dget ( 579145 )
      "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.

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

      That would make sense... except these are the same people who said "Win95 doesn't have DOS". My own PERSONAL experience was having them tell Best Buy sales people when Win95 came out to sell the customer Win95, not matter what they needed. "If they need RAM, sell them Win95. If they need more CPU, sell them Win95." Of course, I was a tech, and MS only talked to the floor people..

      No, I would

  • Read the EULA (Score:2, Informative)

    by gmiller123456 ( 240000 )
    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.

    • Re:Read the EULA (Score:4, Funny)

      by zulux ( 112259 ) on Wednesday March 12, 2003 @02:23PM (#5495494) Homepage Journal
      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!

      • Nice try. Did those evil companies receive and agree with your EULA before you bought their product?

        • Re:Read the EULA (Score:3, Interesting)

          by zulux ( 112259 )
          Nice try. Did those evil companies receive and agree with your EULA before you bought their product?

          I never, "received or agreed" to their EULA before purchase.

          What's good for the one party, is good for all parties.

          If they feel that their EULA is valid because I implicitly agreed to it by clicking a mouse*, then I my EULA is vaild because their software installed itself on my computer.

          *there is no record, admissable in court, that I ever clicked or did not-click throught their EULA. In fact, I don't remember ever needing to do anything of the sort. (hint hint).

          • All this prattle about the legality of EULA's on /. is rather pointless and juvenile, but the fact is that you had the option of not installing that software if you didn't like the EULA, and the compnay that produced it had no opportunity to agree with your "EULA" before they sold it to you. You're attempting to alter the responsibilities of a seller after the transaction is complete.

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

            • Re:Read the EULA (Score:4, Interesting)

              by zulux ( 112259 ) on Wednesday March 12, 2003 @06:48PM (#5498651) Homepage Journal
              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.

              • I didn't state my opinion of EULA's in my posts (look again, it's not there), but I agree that they're weak legally.But, if that's the case, so is your's.
                • I didn't state my opinion of EULA's in my posts (look again, it's not there), but I agree that they're weak legally.But, if that's the case, so is your's.

                  In that case, I oplogise for putting words in your mouth.

                  Yes, I agree, that if one form of EULA is weak (I know they are), then my uber-EULLA is equally weak.

                  Just fighting fire with fire.

  • 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.

    • Re:Good idea, but prolly violates Microsoft's EULA (Score:4, Interesting)

      by gristlebud ( 638970 ) on Wednesday March 12, 2003 @02:11PM (#5495378)
      "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."

    • 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).
    • 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.

    • The whole point of this is they will not be using 50 users concurrently but only 5. I agree that an immediate 'fix' is to buy XP licenses but the point of the solution is to have a solid solution with freedom when the next upgrade bulldozer comes along. I think this is like having 5 PCs on a table and the users walk up to them and use the program according to availability. I also agree to another previous post that a Slashdot opinion will not hold up in court ;-) What I'm after is experiences to prepare to ask the right questions to the right people so I don't get an automatic 'no'.
  • 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.
    • jhunsake said:
      > No offense intended, but I doubt Microsoft is worried about a small shop in Brazil.

      Ah, but then again, why would microsoft be worried about an underfunded elementry school? The school dosen't use computers to make money, infact they use them to teach children.

      *shrug* all they can to squeeze a few more $$

    • 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.


      Famous last words.
      • Yeah, and what's the penalty if you're caught? Just what you would have had to pay anyways.
        • The official penalty is 3000 times the value of each instance of each programm, application, etc. that is not licensed. You can check out the local propaganda at: ABES [abes.org.br] (hit the anti-pirataria link, in case you Spanish or Portuguese doesn't help out, maybe a babelfish translation can do some of it). ABES sends out 'letters' to ask for voluntary license compliance audits, here just like the BSA does in Europe and the US. ABES and the BSA are working closely together.
        • It depends. But like the base is something in the thosands per offense. I've heard of shops with 50 illegal copies of autocad that racked up hundreds of thousands in fines. Granted, autocad costs more, but I know one copy of autocad isn't more than $10k.

    • They do care and care a lot. There are BSA hotlines where people can squeal on others (motly their former employers) and they do bring in the police to raid the compnay. It's in the news every once in a while. Brazil is mentioned in some Halloween Documents [opensource.org] as a country 'troubling' Microsoft.

  • Not Legal (Score:2, Informative)

    by p7 ( 245321 )
    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.
    • A license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be shared or used concurrently on different COMPUTERS.

      5 licences. at any one time only five people will be using windows. Therefore the licences is not being used concurrently on different computers.

      Sounds Legal to me. INAL
      • Read it again:

        "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."

        Pretty crafty, those MS lawyers. I hope the EULA gets its ass kicked in the CA lawsuit. [com.com]
  • First let me explain that M$'s licensing tactics are designed to screw you the most painful way allowed under the law. Sure, it's not unique to M$, but they still try to milk you.

    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.

  • You need to buy a CAL for every user (Score:3, Informative)

    by crath ( 80215 ) on Wednesday March 12, 2003 @06:18PM (#5498328) Homepage
    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.
    • Er, no. TS won't allow more than the number of licensed users to connect. I think it does allow a couple of grace conncetions, but if you've ever worked in a Terminal Services environment where the number of users approached the license limit you know what a pain it is!
      The real problem is actually going to be divying up those licenses as TS (even with patches) won't release a license from a connection for some number of hours. So if you have 5 licenses and 100 potential connecting users you're going to be constantly cleaning up the un-expired licenses...
    • We considered the idea of using individual PCs. Would put 5 PCs in the server room and use VNC from the Linux desktops. After all only 1 user can access it concurrently. I'm not sure if you're talking about 'MS Terminal Server' in your post or 'Win4Lin Terminal Server'. Win4Lin Terminal Server really just puts 5 VNC sessions on the same server (I'm not being technical here, just trying to summarize) and it has the 'feature' of letting only 5 users in. Do you think this is equivalent to having 5 PCs and letting people walk up to use them?
      • I agree with you that the concept Win4Lin is selling is equivalent to 5 physical PCs; however, I do not believe that Microsoft agrees with us. From a "licensing of MS Office" perspective, the Win4Lin solution really isn't any different than MS's own Terminal Server solution: the MS Office license is still shared.

        As the ever-alert /. readership will note, individuals sharing 5 PCs is also sharing Office licenses; however, this sharing of PCs is a historical practice and can easily be defended as "fair use"
    • Sounds to me like you're a little confused with W4LTS and Windows TS.

      AFAIK Client Access Licenses (CAL) are for Windows NT/2k/.NET Terminal/Advanced Server, which has the one machine and CALs for each connecting IP. (I wont even get into the technica problems with limiting via IP when you're using a remote X with rdesktop setup from one linux, and one windows server)

      However W4LTS has a true windows license for each user, and exports the display remotely. It works almost identically to running 5PC's with V
      • I was definitely not clear about the context of my explanation. My post had been motivated by a number of the other comments that preceded mine, and was not a direct answer to the question.

        For the Win4Lin situation, CALs are not required; however, if you are using any version of MS Office newer than Office 95 then I believe Microsoft will assert that you are sharing licenses and need to acquire one per possible user.
  • A (now defunct) company called VEGA Technologies [archive.org] (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.
    • I remember that. Mind you, there's something everyone has overlooked. On single-cpu devices, only one instance of code is actually active at a time, during its' time slice. So, technically speaking, even if 1000 users connect to the machine, their use of the code is not simultaneous, as the device is performing context switches many times a second. It just looks simultaneous to the end-user, because it goes on so fast. No single-cpu machine actually does multi-tasking in the true sense of the word - it just
  • 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/cxofficeserve r /mslicensing.php However, one significant difference between Netraverse (Win4Lin) and CodeWeavers (Term
  • 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,
    • These are programs Siemens, NEC, Alcatel, etc. provide for programming PLCs. The thing is that even if one or more of them could be mande to run once, as soon as the program version changes, the problem may come up again. I could not get it to run the first time but I agree that by tweaking it may be possible to run them. The mian issue is that these suppliers change the software they supply at unpredictable times.
  • ..when your viewing an article on slashdot about microsoft licensing, and an ad for MS Small Business server stuff pops up ;-)

    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

  • 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..

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Close