Home > Windows > Windows Server 2003 Licensing Model Windows Server 2003 Licensing Model Eugenia Loli 2003-03-04 Windows 38 Comments ActiveWin posted an article explaining the new licensing model of Windows Server 2003. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 38 Comments 2003-03-04 8:12 pm Relabel the stuff and refurbish a bit et voila there is a new innovative product. Always customers willing to buy nonsense. 2003-03-04 8:16 pm I think you are over simplyfying. Windows Server 2003 has many new thousands lines of code in it, as a MS employee said in our forums a few months ago. It is a new version for Win2k Server, not an XP upgrade. 2003-03-04 8:22 pm Prices for Windows 2003 Server -> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/pricing/default… (not sure if you guys posted it yet) All the way from Web Edition = $399 -> Enterprise Editions -> $3999 2003-03-04 8:45 pm or kazaa for free. 🙂 2003-03-04 9:22 pm rather not. i like to pay for what i use, otherwise i would be a thief. If the price is to high, i look for an affordable alternate. I find it hard to justify that some people are offended when their car gets stolen, yet those same people are stealing from software companies and music labels by the masses. Don’t wanna pay for cd’s? listen to the radio, or get mp3’s legally (not by kazaa (which otoh is an excellent security risk). Don’t wanna pay for win2k3? keep using 2k or switch to something cheaper (free?) let me give 2 examples: a) there are 2 hardware stores, one sells his boxes preloaded with an official licence, another sells his boxes with illegal copies. the pc’s from the illegal manufacturer are bound to be cheaper, falsifying the market b) there are plenty of software company’s building software on illegal copies of visual studio. Try to go convince them that making a few copies of their software is no big deal. Some people need to rethink themselves about pirating 2003-03-04 9:38 pm That’s some convoluted licensing BS. Also, I never realised how much “legit” MS licenses cost. Bah. No wonder Linux is as successful as it is (in the server market). 2003-03-04 10:34 pm Those license fees are no joke. $4000 for 25 license Enterprise server! Most Enterprises have thousands of clients, on top of this $4000, they have to pay $800 per 20 clients… Now we know why Linux is moving in and others are sticking with NT 4. You can pay around $100K, just for license alone and still have no hardware to run it on. 2003-03-04 10:38 pm yeah….your a dork….that all I have to say…..like you have never downloaded a MP3. give me a break. i could go on about how you are a dork….but Ill be quite now. 2003-03-04 11:16 pm Adding ontop of that, due to the pressure Linux is exerting onto Microsoft, they (Microsoft) have had to pick up their act and produce something that is going to keep their current customers happy and persuade new ones to choose them over the alternatives. How do I know about the pressure, just look at how the release of Windows 2003 has been pushed back several times. If it was Microsoft of old, they would tried to rush it out at the same time as Windows XP, HOWEVER, they didn’t. They held off, bug fixing, testing and more bug fixing until they were confident enough to ship it. Just recently there was an problem found in RTM build 3771, if this was Microsoft of old they would have turned around, said “tough luck, we’ll issue a patch latter”, instead, Microsoft fixed the issue. As for these “analysts” who think that if Microsoft doesn’t release on time the how world will come to an end, these people really need to get an education in information technology before making such stupid statements, they’re paramount to the dot com hype where NO REAL business analysis took place. 2003-03-04 11:28 pm “I find it hard to justify that some people are offended when their car gets stolen, yet those same people are stealing from software companies and music labels by the masses. ” 1) you’ve obviously made an ignorant assumption. Not all victums of car thefts are software piraters/mp3’s ‘theives’ 2) you are comparing apples and oranges. 3) you’ve never had a friend make you a copy of a cd/tape in your whole life. if you say ‘yes’, i say ‘liar’. 2003-03-04 11:29 pm Why do you think people keep saying that Apple’s xServe is so cheep. $8000.00 for a maxed out box and unlimited users. You have to pay more then that just for Windows licences and you’d still have to buy a box to run it on. Linux is free and comes with unlimited users also. For everyone bashing xFree86, you can use it to replace the Terminal Server verion of Windows (ie: same functionallity and free!). Once the 2.6 kernel is released and more programs are updated to run on it, expect even more servers to switch over. 2003-03-04 11:33 pm if you say ‘NO’, i say ‘liar’. my bad. i very seriously doubt you have ligit rights to all the software on your computer. also, why should someone pay an extremely high fee for some os that’s just nothing more then bloatware. come one. microsoft doesn’t innovate, they steal, rob, and theive ideas and peices of technology, then screw it up, then claim “We are the Industry Leaders in Innovation”. after all the shit microsoft has put other companies and competition through, i find it hard to beleive there are microsoft apologist outside the company. you are obviosly one, “ohh boo hoo, you are so mean for not paying for a shitty os… waaaaaaaannnnn”. 2003-03-04 11:37 pm yes, i believe that kernel 2.6 will be one of the biggest steps for linux. have you read the changelogs in any of the 2.5.xx kernels? it’s amazing. 2003-03-05 1:22 am Notice several things. First you basicly need a license per user per device per server. (we’re cubing now!) I know that’s not quite right, but you have to do it anyway to CYA! They’ve stripped the terminal access from XP (included in the OS!) Next time you’ll pay extra for it. You don’t get windows licenses-PCs are completely extra. You have to pay per user for authentication [hence the per user per device] if you have the same user on two machines sharing with someone else that’s two connections = 2 licenses. And if you want to hook up VPN or any authenticated web user [shopping carts!] you’ll need to pay. Fortunately, you have the privellage of being able to pay for those who might use your servers jsut in case! [nevermind they paid to access “their” servers!] They have similar [seperate!] licenses for exchange [server cal + exchange cal], MSSQL [server + client access], and many of the other server products. And remember multiple instances of programs count as extra connections–[I tried hooking into my 5 access 2000 server once. I could only get two actual computers connected because of all the accounting–it just cuts you off!] situation: I’ve got 40 pcs & 60 users that will use networking [you have to pay just to plug in], email, web, and SLQ; plus some web connections. if you go per user, you need at least 90 CALs per service (4) to account for spikes in access at shift changes (good companies overlap, duh!) then you need some more for your web site–how many users do you need? Every cookie probably counts as access. (10, 100, 1000?) You don’t want to turn customers away because of a simple license now do you. (aawww) buy some extra just-in-case. CALs are about $100 a pop (i might be high). the math then: 90 cal * 4 services * $100/cal = $36,000. but the servers OSes are only about $1800/each * 6 [4 servces + 2 as backup/load sharing–you don’t want to have downtime] = $10800 grand total= $46,800. The actual hardware is cheap, even for the good stuff! Then you have management servers [per cal], firewalls, & antivirus [pc’s and servers]. And we haven’t even bought PCs to plug in yet! windows & office/ PC. It started out at only $1800 per server and look where we ended. With the new Product Activation, you will be cut off if you exeeed any of the CALs, and it’s kinda slow about freeing up the licenses too. Phone calls are always extra! Server phone call prices are really outrageous.** Now those IBM iSeries at $75,000 apiece don’t look so bad. If you get the support it’s still not bad at a couple grand a year. [equivelant to SA + support. And you get real person who will help you or find someone who can!] P.S. you get to pay for Software Assurance too. In case anthing in this $100,000+ investment doesn’t work. If they feel like it they might fix it. If you pay, they might give you an update via an automated service. I pity the people that paid out up front, their SA should be just about due and they haven’t even got any real upgrades yet:( **subject to EULA changes any time they feel like it! They have no liability to actually make it work; you have no legal recorse if you bet the farm on MS working for you and you loose your A**. 2003-03-05 1:28 am When I steal your car, you’re sure as hell gonna know about it, and be pissed at me. When I steal/share your software (and get away with it) you’re not going to know it at all. Are you sure your son didn’t share your software with one of his friends yesterday ? If the difference between “stolen”/”shared” software and other software is so subtle you cannot detect it at all, then what’s so wrong about stealing/sharing software ? Clearly, it doesn’t trouble you, and it benefits me (it also benefits you indirectly because I would be a lot more likely to grant you a favor). So exactly what is the problem again ? 2003-03-05 4:10 am Who wants a favour from a thief who sneaks software off a buddy? Who wants a buddy who’s too cheap to buy his own software? You can’t say that it doesn’t trouble someone if the software becomes so widespread that its licence is cancelled for even the original user. Why steal when there are free alternatives for most useful software? 2003-03-05 4:20 am In light of that license, and the pricing, and the alternatives (Linux, Mac OS X), I don’t see the business sense of continuing to buy Microsoft OS products. Also, the license is just the tip of the iceberg. You also get put on a software upgrade cycle, so you can’t stop paying even if you’re happy with your current configuration and don’t need the “new and improved” OS. And, you have no more control over your computing environment; Microsoft has control. And the list goes on, as some of the more informed prior posts point out. P.S. Don’t steal it. Use something else. 2003-03-05 4:30 am What about not wanting to fork out $4000 grand for a 25 box office is cheap? And how do you plan on being productive with out Exchange Server for email? Cause, if you don’t pay, you’re cheap by your standards. This is were microsoft makes it’s money. i’ve seen number saying that up to 73% of all Win98 desktop home pc’s were pirated. So, I guess you are a minority. I always hate when someone has a holier then thou attitude. If i sat down at your pc, are you gonna tell me you paid for every peice of software/mp3? 2003-03-05 5:06 am I find it hard to justify that some people are offended when their car gets stolen, yet those same people are stealing from software companies and music labels by the masses. I’m not going to sit here and try to justify software piracy, but when somebody tries to compare theiving a piece of software to stealing a car, it only proves that they have their nose implanted so deep into the asscrack of Corporate America that when they take a shit, it’s not even theirs. 2003-03-05 5:29 am No, stealing software is not like stealing a car. It is, however, like stealing a book. You do not purchase the contents of the book. You merely purchase the right to read it. If someone publishes a lot of books, and some whiney little shit who wants everything for free steals it, it is still theft. The book retailer has been damaged, the publisher has been damaged, and the author has been damaged. Now, explain to me how stealing software is not the same as stealing a book. 2003-03-05 5:56 am Make no mistake, the changes M$ is making on Terminal Server licensing is very purposeful. 1) It will (once again) hurt Citrix. As if the process of purchasing enough licenses wasn’t confusing enough for their customers, now they take away the ‘free’ license if you are connecting with a current version of the CLIENT! Ow! That’s going to hurt. This means that in order to have ONE user connect using XP Professional through Citrix you’ll need the following licenses: – XP Pro (Client) – 2003 Server License – Terminal Server License (CAL) – Citrix Per Server license Obviously, they are looking to DESTROY Citrix here. Their new boy is New Moon Systems (www.newmoon.com) which offers much of what Citrix does in the failsafe department, but probably gives M$ a greater share of the deal. Only one thing – New Moon doesn’t support any clients other than M$ ones. See a pattern here? Embrace, Extend, Exterminate! 2) This will directly affect Linux. ‘rdesktop’ is a terminal services client for NT 4 / 2000 terminal services. It runs GREAT on Linux and fools 2000 into thinking that it’s a 2000 computer you’re connecting with. Rather than take the chance that someone will eventually reverse engineer the protocol again, M$ has elected to take out the ‘current client’ clause. I believe rdesktop is the main reason for this. This way, even if rdesktop finds its way around the new 2003 terminal client encryption, you’ll still have to pay for a license. One word: BASTARDS! 2003-03-05 6:04 am Now, explain to me how stealing software is not the same as stealing a book. Actually, stealing a book is basically the same as stealing a car, because you’re actually stealing an object which can’t be replaced. If you equate this with stealing software, it would be like walking into a bookstore, stealing a book, taking it home, scanning the contents of the book (making a copy) and then returning the original book back to the bookstore (assuming you could do this without damaging the book, as you most certainly can when copying software). In the above senario, the bookstore, publisher, and author are only harmed if you had chose to copy the book instead of buying it. But if you would have never bought it in the first place but only did it because it was free, then nobdy is actually harmed. Even if you chose to copy it instead of buy it, the above mentioned people would not be harmed as much as if you had stolen it outright, because there is no original to replace. 2003-03-05 6:44 am If you wouldn’t buy it, why would you waste time stealing it. And just try talking a book retailer into letting you take it home so you can make a copy. You still gain the experience of reading the authors work without compensating him. You still gain the experience of the authors work without compensating the people who made it available to you. Do you have the arrogance to assume that they OWE it to you? And for all your rationalizations, don’t you still feel like a thief? Or at least like a cheap bastard. 2003-03-05 6:50 am I find it hard to justify that some people are offended when their car gets stolen, yet those same people are stealing from software companies and music labels by the masses. This isn’t a fair comparison. Intellectual Property and physical propert are not the same thing at all. If someone steals your car then you don’t have it anymore. If someone “pirates” your software then you still have it. The only possible harm of software is when it takes away from legitimate sales. How often does this happen? It is hard to say. I attend a university right now, and for those of you who don’t know, college students pirate big time. I don’t really feel bad about it though, I couldn’t afford to buy the stuff in the first place. They aren’t losing a sale. Piracy hurts honest retailers very little in the long run. 2003-03-05 6:59 am Now, explain to me how stealing software is not the same as stealing a book Once more, the book is a physical object. Let’s say I go to the store and steal a book. Let’s say it cost the store $20 for the book, and he was hoping to make $30 from the sale. I have just cost the store owner $20 in real money and $10 in potential profit he could have made from the book. You could also take it a step farther and say another possible $10 in profit from if I had bought a legitimate copy of the book. Note: the author and publisher have lost nothing here, only the store owner. Now let’s digitize the book. Now the book is sitting on the store’s harddrive (this is pretend-land). The book has it sitting on an ftp and there’s an honor system or something. Anyways, a friend of mine buys the book. Then I have him send it to me. Now what has the store lost? A potential profit of the same $10 (and if I wasn’t going to buy the book anyways then nothing). So we have real theft totalling: $20 in real loss $20 in potential loss We have piracey resulting in: $10 in potential loss Right there we can see that piracy is far less harmful than actual theft. Now if you realize that you can’t lose something you don’t have and that potential loss is ridiculous and unproveable… piracy yields $0 loss. 2003-03-05 7:16 am >But if you would have never bought it in the first place >but only did it because it was free, then nobdy is >actually harmed. >Even if you chose to copy it instead of buy it, the above >mentioned people would not be harmed as much as if you had >stolen it outright, because there is no original to replace doesn’t matter. You may say 1 lost sale doesn’t hurt anyone, but 99% of lost sales hurts a lot of people, especially the people that matter. Example: consider the poor programmers who are out on their backside after their VC funded software company goes belly up because their software got pirated. When a company heads that way, it’s the little people that get hurt first. How do you draw the line between a single lost sale and enough lost sales to send a software (or any publishing company for that matter) bankrupt? Either you stole it or you didn’t – it’s a fundamentally moral question. The copyright owner has a right to protect their investment in whatever way possible, and because of the rampant (and somewhat blatant) piracy of software, that cost is likely to be translated to the end user with things like DMCA and TCPA to prevent unlicensed software from being used. Going back to the car analogy. If I stole your car while you were away for the weekend and returned it in pristine condition and you were none the wiser (filled up the gas, made sure it was in no way damaged, blah, blah), you would still be mad as hell with me when you found out and throw me in jail, especially if the car cost megabucks like a Ferrari or something. The bottom line is that I took advantage of the difference in your wealth to mine. Someone had to work very hard (either you or your family) to acquire the level of wealth that the Ferrari represents and I didn’t so you would have every right to be upset about such an act. How about we look at music. Being a musician, I understand how costly it is to be a musician. Good musical instruments cost a lot of money, and most musicians I know (including myself) have had to forego the good things in life in the pursuit of their profession (if indeed they are good enough to make it a profession). Then take it to the next level. Producing a good album takes either bucketloads of money, or decades of experience if you want to do it on the cheap. We all know the cliches about record companies and middle men and recording studios, but the bottom line is that they are all businesses and some succeed and some fail. However in my experience the greatest business failures in music tend to be in the area of producing and marketing an album. There are very high risks and very high costs in getting that music to the streets. Spare a thought for the struggling muso who is wearing threadbare clothes because people were too stingy to buy their CD and instead borrowed it from a friend so they could buy a few more beers for their mates as they listen to that muso play at a pub where they can’t even put a cover charge on the door. Similar things could be said of the software writer or novelist or whatever. P 2003-03-05 7:18 am And I go to university as well. I bought my operating systems ( even some of the ones I could have downloaded for free). I use OpenOffice. I use gnu gcc to compile. I use tetex and Miketex for math notes. There is very little that a student needs that isn’t for available for free, or on the school networks ( so I can use ssh or vnc to access those ). And having worked in computer retail, I’ve got to tell you that piracy does hurt retailers. And the gall of some the “customers” is positively obscene! I’ve had people actually come up to me and ask if they could just borrow some software so they could copy it, and it wasn’t a joke, and it happened more than once. When it comes down to it I would say that 99% of these people wouldn’t do a lick of work without getting paid for it, but they feel no guilt about ripping off someone elses work. Just because it may be socially accepatable in some mileus doesn’t make any the less theft. You rationalize theft of intellectual property now, but if someone uses your ideas on the job, I’ll be willing to bet that you’ll say they “stole” your idea. I know that when I was working in industry, had I taken some part program (even the ones I had written) from the machine tools and sold them to a competitor, I would have felt that I was stealing; my employer would have felt that I was stealing; the competiter would have felt I was stealing, and the judge would have felt I was stealing, and I would not be punished the more lightly because soemone else had done it a month or a day earlier. 2003-03-05 10:26 am I started reading the article but stopped in the middle of the page. Is it normal that an IT manager has to consult a lawyer before buying an operating system ? I certainly don’t want to get a law degree just to figure out how many clients can hook up to my server. It looks like those greedy people at Micro$oft have found another way to shoot themselves in the foot. That’s a nice business plan : stay rich while others file for Chapter 11. They are really experts at annoying prospective customers to the maximum extent possible. 2003-03-05 1:27 pm “Make no mistake, the changes M$ is making on Terminal Server licensing is very purposeful. 1) It will (once again) hurt Citrix. As if the process of purchasing enough licenses wasn’t confusing enough for their customers, now they take away the ‘free’ license if you are connecting with a current version of the CLIENT! Ow! That’s going to hurt. This means that in order to have ONE user connect using XP Professional through Citrix you’ll need the following licenses: – XP Pro (Client) – 2003 Server License – Terminal Server License (CAL) – Citrix Per Server license Obviously, they are looking to DESTROY Citrix here. Their new boy is New Moon Systems (www.newmoon.com) which offers much of what Citrix does in the failsafe department, but probably gives M$ a greater share of the deal. Only one thing – New Moon doesn’t support any clients other than M$ ones. See a pattern here? Embrace, Extend, Exterminate! ” How on earth can Microsoft embrace, extend and exterminate a technology licensed off Citrix in which they pay royalties back to Citrix. Maybe you should study the relationships between companies before making an idiot of yourself. 2003-03-05 1:44 pm Well said about people noses being so far up the corporate asshole. hahaha 2003-03-05 3:03 pm if my point got misunderstood: as a native dutch speaker i can imagine that some nuances come over in another way than meant. The point of my post was not trying to compare stealing software to stealing cars, the point of my post was: The licences are there to obey, if you don’t like them choose a different product. neither did i try to imply that i don’t copy mp3’s at all, i do copy them, but if they’re keepers then i’ll buy the cd I also see the difference between companies and individuals. Both my examples as well the licences are geared towards company’s, and i firmly believe companies shouldn’t copy software. bottom line: i don’t really have a problem with ppl copying stuff, but i have a major problem with the attitude that copying is normal and allowed, whilst it isn’t 2003-03-05 3:09 pm was posted by tvrg, but from my colleague’s pc so under the nick incakilla by mistake 2003-03-05 3:41 pm “How on earth can Microsoft embrace, extend and exterminate a technology licensed off Citrix in which they pay royalties back to Citrix. Maybe you should study the relationships between companies before making an idiot of yourself.” Yes, perhaps *you* should look at these relationships more closely, I have. Sorry I didn’t get into the extreme nasty details in my last post. The payments Microsoft makes to Citrix END 2Q this year. What’s worse is that the next ‘agreement’ for the 2003 source code does not involve any sort of monetary gain (look at Citrix’ annual financial for this info). Windows 2003 terminal services supports sound, load balancing, and high color – things traditionally left to MetaFrame. What exactly are they leaving Citrix besides holding a VERY big bag? Multi-platform support it seems. That’s not a whole lot. 2003-03-05 5:44 pm “neither did i try to imply that i don’t copy mp3’s at all, i do copy them, but if they’re keepers then i’ll buy the cd ” so when windows is a keeper I can buy it then and it will be ok….till then I would not give them a penny. didn’t I say you were a dork before…..I think I should say it again….no wait…ill be nice. 2003-03-05 8:13 pm Use Linux where and when you can. Especially for big Companies who no matter what configuration of software/hardware/sevices they go with are going to have more than a few competent IT people. Whatever shortcomings Linux may still have they will work around. You are paying them anyway. Perhaps the most apt name for MS software is hassleware. And as far as I know David Hasslehoff is not now, nor has ever been a Microsoft employee. 2003-03-06 2:11 am The district manager is going to have a corinary once they see all this new fangled licencing structure from Microsoft.Just about all of the software we run is either obsolete and or unsupported (WIN95/98/NT4/NT4 Server/Office97/Access/Novell 4/SCO Open server and XENIX!) 98 and NT4 will be “unsuported” soon as well as NT4 server a year from now.. 2003-03-06 3:57 am They are fools. And that’s being kind. 2003-03-06 4:46 am Stockholm syndrome, identify with your abuser.