Submitted by “Microsoft partners think it’s great that the vendor has been aggressively battling software piracy. But some partners say the task of ensuring that their clients are in compliance with Microsoft’s Byzantine software licensing structure is steadily growing more difficult. Making matters worse, several sources told CMP Channel that Microsoft sometimes expects partners to act as foot soldiers in its ongoing campaign against so-called ‘unintentional’ software piracy by reporting organizations that aren’t in compliance, which is threatening their role as trusted advisors to their clients.”
I don’t know who these guys think they are but, in reality, this is not gonna happen.
There is no way in hell I or any other firm I have worked with are gonna rat on a partner’s licensing compliance, period!
Another beauty is this one
Wow, talk about strong arm tactics! I’m so happy I’m not dealing with our MS system engineering, just some of the admin, as I would be seriously wondering about our suppliers and what they report to MS’s reps.
And guess what MS has to say about forcing people to buy a CAL just to get basic mail functions with Outlook 2007 with an exchange backend
Talk about spin!
This is just one more reason to run Linux on the server end, if not on the desktop too. If I own a company and go to a MS partner vendor, and I end up out of licensing compliance, isn’t that pretty much the vendor’s fault? Aren’t they suppose to be advising me on how to stay legal? Also, if your licensing terms are so complicated that your customers can’t figure them out, why the hell would you punish the customers? MS fanboys wonder why there is all the hate for MS. This is a prime example of MS doctrine that serves no purpose but to piss people off. Why isn’t MS tough on piracy where it happens the most? Like China?
Eh? Unless I’m missing something (I didn’t read too into it yet), MS wants their partners to report when someone is breaking the law.
well you should read it. Its not people doing this intentionally for the most part. Its people being out of compliance because they don’t/can’t understand the rules of the EULA. Then MS turns around and punishes them for it. I know of several companies who have switched to linux because they got audited by the BSA. They werent intentionally pirating, and would have paid the bill for the software, but got slapped with an aditional fine of around $100K. Thats a lot for a small business.
Bill and his team of millionaires are looking out for their cash farm.
One-hundred thousand USD for a so-called violation is a `penny` to a company which cashes in millions each day.
If I chose to create my own business I would never use a MS product. I like keeping my cash at home and in the local economy – not – in Bill’s bank account.
“report when someone is breaking the law.”
You should read the article, and pay attention to honest people’s concerns.
I work for a small proprietary software company whose product targets Windows (because of it’s ubiquity), but it easily connects with and/or interacts with other platforms.
Anyway, I deal with our customers all the time, and they have these exact gripes. They have no idea, most of the time, whether or not they are in full compliance with the licensing terms. They’re always getting hit by software audits. They always have to fork out extra money for MS CALS (something that is always conveniently left out in MS sponsored TCO studies).
It is a cold hard fact that businesses have a very hard time staying in compliance with MS’s highly complex, draconian licensing.
And MS is by far not the only culprit. Most of the big players are just as bad, if not worse. Oracle, in particular, is horrendously notorious for their heavy handed software audits and attempts to squeeze every last drop of money out of their customer’s pockets.
All of which makes me so glad for the existence of open source.
Open source is not without it’s licensing complexity. But it is much much better and easier to handle. And the general business plan of open source vendors is to give the software away for free (no licensing), and sign up the customer for paid support.
This is much simpler, and delivers a much much better TCO. The only real compliance issues is redistribution of open source software, which is generally a complete non-issue for most companies.
Edited 2007-08-30 16:27
Not only that, but figuring out what kind of licenses you need and what license agreement would most benefit you as a customer instead of Microsoft can be an exercise in frustration.
Let’s say that you are a small non-profit and you have a file server that serves 25 users and you want those users to be able to connect remotely through Terminal servers as well.
As a non-profit, funds are tight and you want that beefy server that you bought to do double duty as an SQL server because you have some applications that require SQL.
You also have an Exchange server, your Windows client licenses and Microsoft Office.
What is it going to cost me? Why do I pay for each client that accesses the Exchange server when I already pay for each Outlook license?
Can somebody price this stuff easily? These are the sorts of questions that make it dead easy for me to sell my services competitively.
Typical configuration.
Server: CentOS, Debian or Ubuntu LTS (I have begun to test the latter) Apache, MySQL, Postfix, Egroupware or kolab on the server. NXserver as the remote terminal server.
Client: Openoffice as office suite and as a front-end to mysql when needed (kexy also works well in this role), Evolution or kontact as the groupware client or if you use egroupware, the web interface is so nice that you don’t even need to maintain separate clients and it gives you a whole lot more than Exchange such as project management, timesheets, troubletickets, etc. Egroupware even has LDAP support and integrates well into an Active Directory network, if you happen to have a mixed network.
And there is the added peace of mind of not having to worry much about licenses (with the exception of the nxserver) or paying additional money for each client that connects to the email or file server.
Cheaper, easier, more secure and more effective.
Edited 2007-08-30 20:20
If you’re a non-profit, you simply acquire your software via http://www.techsoup.org and/or Microsoft’s Open License Non-Profit program. Open License, in general, is great for anyone needing 5 or more licences for Microsoft products (though probably not as necessary for most home users now that there’s a home version of Office that includes 3 licenses).
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/open/default.mspx
And running SQL, Exchange, etc., with 25 users is a no brainer. Use Windows Small Business Server.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/default.mspx
Edited 2007-08-30 22:08 UTC
Oh, yeah, it’s very simple. This FAQ feels me with confidence:
http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsServer2003/sbs/evaluation/faq/licen…
I encourage everyone to read it just to see how ridiculous it gets. And that’s going to the product that you recommended. I may not want to have all of the services on the same box, but then this product you recommend it doesn’t work anymore.
“Q:Can I separate the components of SBS 2003 R2; for example, install Exchange or SQL Server on another server?
A.You may not separate the software for use on more than one operating system environment under a single license. This applies even if the operating system environments are on the same physical hardware system, such as by using virtualization technology.”
And where I said nonprofit, I could have said small business. The truth is that Microsoft’s licensing is described as byzantine by Microsoft’s own Gold certified partners.
I would rather pay for support when I need it than “license” software, although the latter is an option of last recourse when there isn’t a FLOSS tool that meets the requirements.
And here’s the technical FAQ on the product that you recommended. It also feels my with confidence as to how well Microsoft’s own products interoperate
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsServer2003/sbs/evaluation/faq/roadm…
Edited 2007-08-30 23:46
You’re not going to be able to seperate the components onto a seperate box because it’s sold as one package at a deep discount. If you have seperate boxes, simply buy SBS licenses for each server box.
One box should be more than enough for 25 users in any case and simpler to manage. SBS supports 75 users per box. Small businesses were taken into account in my previous post as I know there’s little difference between them and small businesses. The advice is the same. Small businesses (and even individuals if their needs fit) likewise benefit from the Open License program vs. retail or the larger volume programs. It’s easier to manage and you get better pricing.
Edited 2007-08-31 01:33 UTC
You’re not going to be able to seperate the components onto a seperate box because it’s sold as one package at a deep discount.
Oh, Microsoft is doing small businesses and all of us such a favour! There is no such thing as a discount because software does not have a unit price cost.
If you have seperate boxes, simply buy SBS licenses for each server box.
The last I looked, more than one SBS server could not be run on the same network.
One box should be more than enough for 25 users in any case and simpler to manage. SBS supports 75 users per box.
The issue gets bigger when an organisation grows, and the artificial licensing restrictions start to get in the way of that growth. No one should need to go out and buy new software licenses when that happens.
The advice is the same. Small businesses (and even individuals if their needs fit) likewise benefit from the Open License program vs. retail or the larger volume programs.
Sorry, but businesses, small and large, simply do not have the time or the inclination to keep up with Microsoft’s, and other vendors’, artificial licensing policies.
I used to work in a tiny chain (4 stores) bookstore. Once a year a representative from ASCAP would walk in and minutely inspect the acoustics to make sure the FM radio behind the counter only had one speaker and did not have a second speaker hidden somewhere in the store.
Considering who really owned the bookstore chain, I’m amazed this bean-counter never had his legs broken.
Is it just me or is it starting to feel like keeping track of the licenses to all the products in any business is every bit as complicated as your average income tax return/refund/adjustment.
It’s just sick how everything needs to become so complex. As far as I can tell, the only reason for the complexity is to hide how much we actually spend so a little more can be extracted without too much bitching.
I wonder how often the administration costs of keeping track of licenses is considered in TCO studies. I think the lack of the license issue (or way less of one) should be a pretty huge factor in any assessment of competing software.
I say use MacOSX server. It can do email and a lot more with you having to worry about CALs.
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/