[TriLUG] Microsoft to support Linux

Fri Apr 22 12:47:41 EDT 2005

yes, I wasn't thinking of transfer of actual license ownership... I
was only thinking in terms of within a single org or home.  I can see
by what Aaron posted, transfering to another owner seems a horrid
process!!

Also, being able to and encouraged to give linux to anyone and
everyone, how great that is!!  :)

David McD

On 4/21/05, Brian Henning <lugmail at cheetah.dynip.com> wrote:
> Argh.  My most recent sendmail installation was installed a bit TOO tight...
> That last message from me should have gone out a couple hours ago..  heh
> heh...
> 
> Anyhoo.  Aaron has certainly shed some interesting light on the issue of
> transferrability of MS licenses.  I imagine even more of my questions could
> be answered if I reread the EULAs more carefully myself.
> 
> Actually, in my original post, the [non-] transferrability I was alluding to
> was specifically for Client Access Licenses.  Perhaps they transfer
> automatically as needed, and perhaps permanent CALs behave differently than
> temporary CALs (at least as far as Terminal Services), but when I use the TS
> Licensing management app, I see zero actions that can be performed on an
> existing license.  No releasing, no transferring.  Granted, however, that
> all I have right now are temporary TS CALs.  Next week I'll have some
> permanent paid-for TS CALs to experience, and see if they're transferrable
> from one client connection to another (i.e. will two permanent CALs allow
> ANY two machines to be connected at a given time, or ONLY two machines to
> ever be connected?...).
> 
> As far as transferring an OS license..  Perhaps the EULA allows for it, but
> certain versions (namely OEM) of the Product Keys only allow you to activate
> for ONE machine and ONE machine only.  Transferring that license would have
> to involve a probably headache-generating call to MS Customer Support.
> Which is why I'm rallying for Open Licensing at my workplace.  No
> activations, so internal transferral of licenses is [read: should be] a
> snap.
> 
> ~B
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: trilug-bounces at trilug.org [mailto:trilug-bounces at trilug.org]On
> Behalf Of Aaron S. Joyner
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:08 PM
> To: Triangle Linux Users Group discussion list
> Subject: Re: [TriLUG] Microsoft to support Linux
> 
> David McDowell wrote:
> 
> >I'm in no way trying to rant... so please know this is light and curious.
> :)
> >
> >I'm curious what you mean by non transferrable??  I can take any
> >server I have, take it out of commission, replace with a completely
> >new server and use the same license.  That is transferrable.
> >
> >
> But can you "Transfer" it to someone else?  Can you give away or sell
> that which you have purchased to another individual?  From Microsoft's
> Windows XP Professional EULA:
> 
> > 4. TRANSFER-Internal.  You may move the Product to a different
> > Workstation Computer.  After the transfer, you must completely remove
> > the Product from the former Workstation Computer.  Transfer to Third
> > Party. The initial user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of
> > the Product to another end user.  The transfer has to include all
> > component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and if
> > applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity.  The transfer may not be
> > an indirect transfer, such as a consignment.  Prior to the transfer,
> > the end user receiving the transferred Product must agree to all the
> > EULA terms.  No Rental.  You may not rent, lease, lend or provide
> > commercial hosting services to third parties with the Product.
> 
> So the net result there being you can, with out a whole lot of hassle,
> transfer the license.  Oh, but only once.  And only with some strings
> about not being able to host or lease on XP Pro.  Let's go back in time
> a bit farther to Windows 2000 Pro:
> 
> > Software Product Transfer.  You may permanently transfer all of your
> > rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of
> > the HARDWARE, provided you retain no copies, you transfer all of the
> > SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including all component parts, the media and printed
> > materials, any upgrades, this EULA and, if applicable, the
> > Certificate(s) of Authenticity), and the recipient agrees to the terms
> > of this EULA.  If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade, any transfer
> > must also include all prior versions of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
> 
> So with 2k we can't transfer it at all, unless it goes with the machine
> (98SE was very similar as well).  But there's no draconian limitations
> about what we can and can't do with it in terms of providing hosting to
> other customers.  Guess they hadn't thought that up yet.  :)  How about
> Windows 2000 Server?  Let's take a peak:
> 
> > Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Product may make a
> > one-time transfer of the Product to another end user. The transfer has
> > to include all component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA,
> > and if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The transfer may
> > not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment.  Prior to the
> > transfer, the end user receiving the transferred Product must agree to
> > all the EULA terms. No Rental. You may not rent, lease, or lend the
> > Product.
> 
> So here's where the "may not rent, lease or lend" verbiage started to
> creep in.  Note that we also can't transfer but once in 2k Server.
> There are similar niceties about being able to move it from device to
> device internal in your corporation just before the 3rd party parts, as
> was in the XP license quoted above.
> 
> I tried to find a copy of the Server 2003 licensing, but I was unable to
> google one up.  I suspect it's more draconian than the XP licensing, in
> continuing with M$'s strategy of hiring more and more lawyers to cook up
> more and more ways to restrict your use of their code, to translate into
> more and more money, in ever craftier ways.  Then again, I'm a bit of a
> biased point of view.  :)
> 
> Personally, I'll stick with products that if I like them sufficiently,
> and want to use them myself, *encourage* me to give copies to as many
> people as I can find.  I'd rather have a software provider that is more
> interested in my being thrilled with the function of their software,
> than how much of my budget I'm willing to spend with them.
> 
> Aaron S. Joyner
> --
> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
> TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
> TriLUG PGP Keyring         : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
> 
> --
> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
> TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
> TriLUG PGP Keyring         : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
>