Sell Your Computers, Keep Paying MS For Licenses 689
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft Licensing 6.0 requires a company to pay up on software maintenance when the computers that are covered under the license are sold off. Here's the kicker though: MS is no longer obligated to provide maintenance even though the contract is paid up! Read the Infoworld article."
huh huh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:buy a cell phone w/ 2 year license... (Score:5, Insightful)
lose cell phone after 6 months
still pay remainig 1.5 years left in license...
How hard is that to understand?
This is easy to understand, and fair.
The cell phone network heavily subsidizes your purchase of the cell phone. equipment. They want you to commit in order to get that subsidy. You can't just buy the phone, and then switch service in 30 days, taking the phone that they mostly paid for over to their competitors network, paying the competitor for network service.
There is no such comparison here. If I'm going to pay for 3 years of upgrades, even if I pay today, then it seems fair that this covered computer should get three years of upgrades, even if said computer is in someone else's hands. You can't have it both ways. (Of course, Microsoft can because they have monopolost control -- the very definition of which is not the absence of competition, but one of control where they can get away with stuff that they could not in a non-monopoly situation.)
If I pay for 3 years of insurance, the covered computer gets coverage for three years. What is so different here? If I cancel the policy, then I stop paying, and stop getting coverage.
Why are you trying to defend Microsoft's unfair practice? (Just curious.)
If I'm 1 year into a 3 year payment and upgrade plan, then why wouldn't it be fair that the software on my computer today is fully licensed if I cancel the plan today. It is also fair that I should get no further upgrades under the plan. But not getting either of these is simply unfair. Remember this plan is upgrade advantage. Not acquisition. You still have to acquire the product before enrolling it in upgrade advantage. I stop paying in 2 months, I stop having any rights to upgrade at that time. The original acquisition, and any upgrades received thus far should be mine. Shouldn't they? (If everything were fair.)
Have to say it... (Score:4, Funny)
Mabye this is what they kept talking about during all of those trials.
remember..... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying that MS is good, quite the contrary. They will rape their customers for as much money as they can, but from a bunsiness standpoint they're just just doing business.
If you don't like it, use linux.
Re:remember..... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you don't like the terms, suck it up. MS has a monopoly on the desktop, especially in terms of business software. They can put any damned thing they want into their licenses, because most businesses have nowhere else to go.
This story simply helps to illustrate the difference between having a monopoly and abusing one.
Re:remember..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't believe me? Go to VersionTracker [versiontracker.com] and take a look at all the software you could ever want for that platform.
True Apple does have licensing as well, but it's not near as arduous as Microsoft's, that and Apple supports open source far more than Microsoft ever has or ever will.
When you factor in software and hardware costs, using the Mac isn't so much more expensive given that even though the hardware costs more, you get far better terms on licensing, that and your support costs are a lot less given that Mac's don't break down near as often as PC's. It may even be less, I remember a study which showed total cost of ownership of a network of Mac's was less than comparable PC's using Windows, but I can't remember where it was.
Linux and Macs will not solve world hunger (Score:3, Insightful)
I
Re:Linux and Macs will not solve world hunger (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know why anybody would want to throw everything out overnight.
But haven't it occured to you that maybe just stop upgrading Windows and using Linux boxes when the hardware needs to be replaced is a viable alternative.
That's what I would do.
Re:Linux and Macs will not solve world hunger (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple: you don't! If your clients want MS crap, then you have two choices: 1) give it to them, and put up with all that entails. 2) tell your clients to go to hell, and get some new clients.
Your decision here can be made using simple economics; for choice 1, you determine how much revenue you're getting from these MS-loving clients, and how much you're paying (license fees, etc.) to provide what they want. If you're profitable, then be happy. But if you're losing money, then who cares what the clients want? Either raise prices to become profitable (which may cause the clients to bail on you) or find some new clients.
Seriously, why are you here? If you're happy using MS crap, because a bunch of dumb clients are paying you to provide stuff using MS crap, and you're profitable, then you have nothing to complain about, regardless of MS's crazy licensing schemes, and might as well ignore this whole discussion topic. If you, as an individual, is unhappy working with MS crap, but your company is happy, then you need to either learn to put up with it or find a better job. If your company is losing money because of Licensing 6.0 and is about to go down the toilet, but management is too stupid to make the hard decisions necessary to fix the problem (i.e., get new customers), then you should probably start working on your resume.
Re:Linux and Macs will not solve world hunger (Score:3, Interesting)
Telling a business "Can't you just switch" or "If you don't like it, do use it" is completely naive.
Really, it's just a summary of the situation. Naive was the business assuming that MS wouldn't use their monopoly position to squeeze more and more money out of them in spite of their long history of doing just that.
Even more naive is assuming that this is as bad as it will get. MS has made it clear that their license will get tougher than ever. The Bush administration has made it clear that it has no i
Re:remember..... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:remember..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I want it spelled out to me: do I buy this or do I lease it. And for me, if I go to a store and buy something, without having to sign a piece of paper which I'd read very carefully, I have bought something. No matter what some clickthru EULA says.
Of course, Licence 6.0 is nothing like that. But even so, I'd say that this is a perfect example of MS leveraging their monopoly position for vendor lock-in. due to the fact that it is unfeasable for many companies already running MS to switch to anything else [yeah, it's possible, but only with clear changeover protocols and policies...which these companies might not have]. This can have multiple reasons, from financial (retraining) to time factors (retraining
Re:remember..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft even go so far as to say that PCs without an OS installed are machines for pirates and even have a scheme where OEMs are rewarded for reporting people asking for such machines.
They don't seem to be able to comprehend that a customer may already own Windows or wish to install an alternative OS.
Re:Another funny concept (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Another funny concept (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another funny concept (Score:3, Funny)
All I can say is that if someone wants me to keep a secret after I no longer work for them they better PAY ME EVERY DAMN DAY I KEEP MY MY MOUTH SHUT or their secrets are going to fly fast and free.
Otherwise what is the bargain? I am no longer paid, BUT I have to keep their secrets quiet FOR FREE?!? That is totally fucked up.
No way in heck am I going to keep working for them if they refuse to keep paying me
This is NOT about usage licenses! (Score:5, Informative)
When Licensing 6.0 first came out you had to pay the full cost of the Software Assurance right at the start. When MS found that companies balked at such a huge up-front capital cost they allowed for the payment to take place over three years. No interest, but no discount either.
The issue arises when a company tries to divest itself of licenses covered by Software Assurance before the three years are up.
What happens is that:
1) The divesting company must pay the remaining amount of the Software Assurance agreement.
2) Neither the divesting, not acquiring company receives any Software Assurance after the divestiture.
What this means is that if the acquiring company wants Software Assurance on the transferred licenses they will have to purchase a brand-new SA agreement from Microsoft. If the divesting company sold their licenses after only one year, Microsoft would get TWO YEARS of SA fees for the same licenses for which SA had already been bought, essentially selling the same thing twice.
There has GOT to be some law against double-selling.
Re:remember..... (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, the argument about software is that because you need to copy it to use it, you need a license. Not true, the US copyright code (which I'll use here for a common-ground even though I'm not from the US) specifically allows all temporary copies required for the normal use of the program.
You can't vi
Re:remember..... (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't assign causality like that. Because it is opensource, people aquired the code, because one affects the other. Linus being famous due to Linux's opensourceness works too, because if it wasn't opensource, it would never have progressed to be such a big project. People wouldn't have helped.
Saying opensource is unreliable doesn't work. Code is unreliabale because people write bad code. Linux has a lot of dev
Re:remember..... (Score:5, Informative)
You're not exactly comparing like to like here. Use of a blender is not the same as distribution of software.
In fact, you are restricted with you can do with that blender or transmission. Specifically, if components of the device or the entire device itself is covered under a non-expired patent, you can't use it as a template to make and sell your own blenders or transmissions.
Similarly, the GPL is a license. But it says nothing about what you do with the software. You can compile proprietary software with GCC, view porn with the gimp, use emacs to write racist tracts, etc, etc -- and nothing in the GPL prevents you from doing this. The license only applies when you attempt to distribute software derived wholly or in part from GPL'd software, just as the the invisible patent restrictions on your blender (not everything in intellectual property law is built around shrinkwrap licenses!) prevented you from copying and distributing your own blender based wholly or in part on patented devices.
Odious and ridiculous licenses do abound in software, but because individual software products have stupid licenses doesn't mean you should lump the GPL in with them, or even believe that software licenses are inherently at odds with normal behaviour in other spheres of life, such as blender ownership
Re:remember..... (Score:3, Informative)
Um, no it doesn't. If you sell someone your copy of Debian, you don't have to comply with the GPL. If you sell someone another copy you made from the first, then you have to comply with the GPL.
With my blender, I can sell or give it to someone in whatever state I want. I can do it with the cover removed.
That only applies to the very blender which you purchased. If you make a copy of tha
Trying to understand this- Product vs. Service? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, you don't own the blender. You just lease it. AND they can tell you what to put into it, AND decide that if you put anything interesting in it, they own both the blender and the new stuff, but they still aren't liable for repairing it or your personal injuries (that last part makes sense. It's the rest that's scaring me.)
Furthermore, If you want to sell the blender- which you
Re:remember..... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you most certainly are not.
Nobody - as in *NOBODY* has EVER been bound by the GPL in the course of using Linux, or any other GPL'ed software.
Ever.
If you believe otherwise, you don't understand what the GPL is, or does.
The GPL only comes into effect if you distribute software. It has absolutely NO relevance if all you do is use it.
Distribution license. It's completely different. (Score:5, Informative)
Let me put this in bold so that you don't miss it:
No, you aren't.
As a user of Linux, I have absolutely no need to ever even read the GPL, much less accept it. The GPL is nothing like MS' EULA because the GPL is not an EULA. It's a distribution license.
When you go to give a hundred copies of Linux to your friends, the thing that makes you stop and read the GPL is copyright. It is illegal to distribute someone else's copyrighted work by law -- no license involved yet whatsoever. At that point, the GPL can then give you the right to distribute copies (modified or no) if you agree to the terms. The fact that copies of the GPL comes with all your software is where the similarities with MS EULAs ends. The GPL is like the license MS gives to companies who want to modify Windows, which odds are you have never seen nor will ever see.
Free Software is like your blender -- the person who sold you the software/blender does not restrict your use at all. Whether distributing copies of your blender is illegal depends on specifics of copyright, trademark, and patent law. If your blender is patented, then you sure as hell can't distribute copies (or even similar devices) to your friends, just like Free Software is copyrighted. Unlike with your blender, the GPL gives you an easy way to aquire permission to distribute (no really, call your blender manufacturer and try to get the same permission).
You own Free Software in the exact same way you own your blender, or better a print of the Mona Lisa (or the real thing, for that matter). You can paint over it, hang it upside down, use it as toilet paper if you want, but distribution is restricted -- not by a license, but by copyright law. Just like there are plenty of laws restricting your use of the blender that have nothing to do with a license (you can't put it on my head then push "puree", for example).
So please dissuade yourself of the notion that the GPL is anything like the EULAs that corporations are using to limit users' rights. I'm so sick of this completely wrong interpretation of the GPL. I keep writing about it, though, because I hate to see Free Software so badly misunderstood. Maybe I should write it up in a journal entry or something and just post a link everytime someone says "GPL is no different than a MS EULA". Or maybe there is a decent explanation already. Time to google...
Suppose I make 20 copies of my WordPerfect and sell it to my friends for $50 each. We all know that's illegal (I'm not sure exactly which laws it falls under, but it's a ton of them). So what can be accomplished in a license (that actually needs to be there for the protection of the vendor) that can't be accomplished with existing laws.
Exactly. The GPL uses only existing laws, not the tenuous legal status of shrink/click-wrap EULAs. You can't distribute copyrighted works without permission (since shortly after the inception of the Union); the GPL is that permission.
BTW, you are completely right that the way proprietary software is treated as being licensed instead of owned is broken. I'm just saying the GPL operates in the world you wish for, so don't knock it.
The GPL *extends* your rights (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL gives you the right to copy, modify and redistribute the code. If it weren't there copyright would forbid all these things. Maybe the BSD-License gives you even more rights, but if you aren't satisfied with the rights the GPL gives you, you should complain about copyright first, because that puts more limitations on the products it covers.
You also pay money for a book, but that still doesn't mean you
What good are MS lisences anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
They have a monopoly, let's get used to it.
monopoly power at work... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:monopoly power at work... (Score:5, Interesting)
"A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity."
MS has control of many arena's due to their propreitary formats. They own the office world due to the fact that the MS office format is closed. They own the desktop world because their crappy API is closed (though WINE can do some sweet things...but not all) so 3rd party app's only work on their crap.
The entire idea behind a monopoly is that other companies CAN NOT compete in that environment, no matter what they do. Even if they give it away for free for 12 years that doesn't matter because of the environment that the monopoly has created.
I love linux, but don't give me this "they have competition and their are options" bull. If that was the case then the JD wouldn't need to have declared them a monopoly!
Re:monopoly power at work... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, somehow the US government at the moment believes that the MSFT monopoly is good for US economic interests, thus they choose not to break it. Which continues to cause great harm both to (forced) clients and potential competitors.
The danger in th
Re:monopoly power at work... (Score:3, Interesting)
That is harmful, by all objective means. I am not a vengeful anti-MSFT fanatic, I do not necessarily want to see that company destroyed, but I am convinced that its monopoly is very harmful to its customers and competitors, and t
Re:monopoly power at work... (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you pay Red Hat for three years of thier Linux support, then, a year and a half later, decide to move each and every one of your boxen to BSD, do you think you can suddenly back out of the contract you have with Red Hat?
You can replace Red Hat with Sun/Solaris, IBM/any of their products, and so on, and so forth.
what if my computer catches fire? (Score:4, Funny)
what if my computer catches fire?-"/." testing. (Score:5, Funny)
Give us your URL. We'll find out.
Re:what if my computer catches fire? (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but you also have so start paying Apple [apple.com] too. .
(Incidentally, lots of people think that "reduced" is the wrong word here: try improved)
What happens with licences on dead computers? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've often wondered - I've got a Sony Vaio, which came for a licence for Windows ME (which I don't use anyway). But when the laptop eventually dies, does the licence die with it?
Or am I allowed to move it to another computer?
Re:What happens with licences on dead computers? (Score:5, Informative)
If you pay full retail for a boxed copy, you can use it as long as you want, so long as you only use it on one machine at a time.
Re:What happens with licences on dead computers? (Score:3, Funny)
Of all the luck.
Re:What happens with licences on dead computers? (Score:5, Interesting)
I just thinking about ways to weasel an OEM licence into a new system... if I take the floppy out of an obsolete computer and drop it into a new system, can I claim that the "computer" the software licences were attached to went transferred along with the floppy drive? Logically of course not, but legally may be another matter.
Re:What happens with licences on dead computers? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you pay full retail for a boxed copy, you can use it as long as you want, so long as you only use it on one machine at a time.
I wonder if that's really true. I thought that even when you paid for it at retail you only got to run it on one computer, ever. That's what the whole Windows XP activation scheme is about.
Re:What happens with licences on dead computers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its like my cable provider only allowing my account to be used from one cablemodem at a time. If I replace it, I have to call and tell them, they purge the old MAC address and enter the new one.
Personally, I think
Re:What happens with licences on dead computers? (Score:5, Informative)
OEM versions only allow a single install on a single machine, which is why they are so much cheaper.
Re:What happens with licences on dead computers? (Score:5, Informative)
Originally, my retail box of Windows XP Pro stated I was explicitly allows to transfer XP from one machine to another, provided I deleted the first copy.
After the upgrade, the EULA stated "The SOFTWARE is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single integrated product and may only be used with the HARDWARE." It goes on to state that if I sell the hardware, XP has to go with it.
This is from a full retail copy, folks. Take a look at your own EULA, \windows\system32\eula.txt. Also note that I never saw any indication this EULA was being updated in the SP2 installation process (and I read the presented update EULA there in full).
Yeah, OK then... (Score:3, Interesting)
And you think that their changing the EULA with a service pack update can force your original license to suddenly be bound to a single piece of fictitious hardware that the software wasn't purchased with in the first place?
<quote character="Martin" show="The Simpsons">
Ha
Re:What happens with licences on dead computers? (Score:3, Insightful)
However the article addresses the issue of business enterprise and site licenses and doesn't directly apply to consumers.
IANAL so this is just what I would do, but I would not have any moral problem using it on a different computer. And since Microsoft/BSA are very unlikely to go after consumers who have
How these guys "won" the "OS Wars"... (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe Apple was right with their (globally lambasted) "Lemmings" super bowl ad in 1985. Business just blindly walked off the cliff and right into Gates/Ballmers' bank accounts.
Of course I suspect if history had been different and we'd all ended up buying Apple's the result would not be that different. We'd have a Steve Jobs/Borg head icon instead perhaps. =)
At least we didn't all buy Amigas... then we'd all have to off ourselves for being such bleating wankers.
heh.
Re:How these guys "won" the "OS Wars"... (Score:3, Funny)
The trouble is those documents are in Microsoft format because it's the defacto standard, and, let's not kid ourselves, Office X is much buggier than Office for Windows and OpenOffice is still ramping up.
What to do? Keep preaching software freedom I guess, and hope that people get so sick of MS they jump to open formats.
Or hire the former Vice President of the United States of
last two paragraphs in article sums it up... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you didn't already know that, you just haven't been paying attention.
How many more reasons do companies need to dump Microsoft and go with unix/linux?
Re:last two paragraphs in article sums it up... (Score:5, Insightful)
1 and only 1. The problem is, that 1 reason has to be that Linux/Unix/etc. have a similar level business app that just runs on them. None of this silly, get the source, modify if for a company's purpose, and then complie it. Ah, shit, ok, go find dependancies, complie. Damn, missed one, get that one, compile. Crap, that one had 4 more, ok get those, complie. Hey, we have an app that looks like hell and really doesn't do what we need.
The *nix community needs to get some serious developer support before companies will really start to look at it seriously. Also the whole RTFM attitude is doing tons of harm to the movement as well. When the only support you can get for an OS is found on the web, and half the responses are along the lines of "RTFM 1d10t, y0ur a 1user, and 1m 37337" this does not instill confidence in that OS.
Sadly, in the end, the things that make Linux attractive are going to be the same things that hold it back from taking more of the business desktop market.
- It's free - Which usually means there isn't a company behind it that will support it.
- It's open source - So you can modify it to do what you want it to do. This, of course, takes time and money, and there isn't a company you can go to and pay them to do it.
Businesses like fire and forget solutions, they don't care about the politics of it. And for all its flaws, Windows is quick and easy to get going.
Re:last two paragraphs in article sums it up... (Score:3, Informative)
Now now, you're comparing apples and oranges here.
If you go direct to a Linux vendor like RedHat or a company like
Blah blah blah, it's called a contract (Score:5, Insightful)
The same goes with many other maintanaince/support contracts. Dont like it? Do business with someone else.
We have customers who still contractually pay for support on HP big iron boxes that havent been plugged in for years.
Another case of MSFT doing the same thing everyone else does, execpt (heres the kicker!) for some reason it's "evil" because you dont like windows.
Big fat whoop. MS Licensing is a business support contract, and pretty much a standard one at that.
this will change (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a short term problem.
Re:Blah blah blah, it's called a contract (Score:5, Informative)
That's a rather poor analogy. Perhaps this would be more accurate:
- Pedro demands the contract be paid in full prior to moving.
- Pedro then refuses to care for the lawn even though the new owners want the service.
- The new owners are forced to buy their own lawn care contract.
Re:Blah blah blah, it's called a contract (Score:5, Insightful)
I am with Sprint PCS and have a one year agreement with them. I choose to switch to Verizon before my agreement is up. I cannot use my Sprint PCS phone with Verizon, so I decide to sell it.
1. Sprint PCS is going to charge me for breaking my contract.
2. The new owner of the phone has to start their own contract with Sprint PCS if they want service. The remainder of my contract will not carry over to the new owner of the phone.
This example is what actually happens if I were to do all of this. But we don't see Sprint PCS, Verizon or any of the other carriers posted on Slashdot.
Fact is, this is just basic business. It only makes headlines on Slashdot because it's Microsoft.
Re:Blah blah blah, it's called a contract (Score:5, Insightful)
If John Smith changes his name to John Jones, does Sprint PCS force an "acceleration" of the original contract and then make John Jones sign a new contract? No, that would be absurd. However, if a computer that once was part of Company X is now part of Company Z, the contract must be paid in full, yet Company Z must now also purchase a new contract.
The main reason your analofy doesn't hold up is because the situation are just too different. Cell phone contracts are relatively short (1-2 years) and inexpensive ($25-50/month) compared to software licenses. There's also numerous companies who offer very similar service. Microsoft is the only company who sells Windows XP, 2003 Server, etc. You can't go "somewhere else" unless you plan on migrating away from MS entirely. This is usually far too expensive, it's not at all like switching cell service. I do agree that companies need to read the contract much more carefully, but that doesn't excuse the fact that Microsoft is abusing its monopoly status.
Re:Blah blah blah, it's called a contract (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, the contract is non-transferrable, and there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe the prices that they are charging are being abus
Re:Blah blah blah, it's called a contract (Score:3, Insightful)
If you apply the Microsoft license situation to a mortgage, it might happen like this:
I choose to sell my house to my brother for $1 (I'm a very nice guy, but want to avoid gift tax). As above, I've already paid $200K, so I settle the remaining $100K. The bank now dec
Re:Blah blah blah, it's called a contract (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. If I agree to pay him fifty bucks a week, for one year, to spray Lawn X, then I move away from Lawn X, I'm still contractually obligated to him. Whoever now owns Lawn X isn't.
Hence, contracts of this sort tend to include both who and where.
And tend to have provisions for things like somebody moving away.
Breaking News (Score:4, Funny)
In post Saddam Iraq, Microsoft licenses you.
Dear Microsoft... (Score:4, Funny)
You are making my world domination^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H job so much easier.
Thank you so much in advance,
Yours respectfully,
Linus Torvalds
No DOJ needed for MS destruction. (Score:4, Insightful)
Boy I'm glad not to be under common law... (Score:3, Funny)
Standard contracts (Score:3, Insightful)
While I fully agree that this is not the most ethical behavior, But I also think this might fall under the category of "never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity". I think this is just something that was overlooked or ignored because it was problematic. Plus who else are you going to go to? (*cough* monopoly *cough*)
Linux Call the Manufacturer Day (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of whining here are some things that you can do.
Ask computer manufacturers if their machines are linux compatible
(especially laptops)video cards, sound cards, etc.
Most have a toll free numbers.
If the don't support linux ask "them when will they?".
Ask software suppliers it they have ported their products to linux.
Call their main office. Once one company listens others will follow.
We need a "Linux Call the Manufacturer Day".
They will get the message.
Re:Linux Call the Manufacturer Day (Score:5, Interesting)
How does April 23rd sound ?
Seriously. It's fine to say 'we should', we see
that alot on slashdot (phone your political rep. etc.). Let's do something. Pick your favourite
vendor that doesn't support linux yet, call them
on April 23rd.
I think we (slashdot readers) have more influence
than we often think we do.
Not surprised (Score:3, Interesting)
First it was per cpu licensing, then refund day, the MS tax on every name brand computer, licensing 6.0, expiring licenses, the "media center pc" (which is nothing more than a PC with a tv tuner), pay for support you don't (and can't) get.
What totally boggles my mind is that in the face of so many alternatives in both the desktop and server markets (linux, sun, mac os x) people continue to pull down their pants and bend over for Bill.
Not only do they not complain, but they do it willingly. People jump at the chance to hand over their hard earned cash to a bunch of crooks.
Maybe MS knows their days are numbered and it's only a matter of time before people wake up out of the mass stupor blanketing this planet, and that's why they're milking those poor fools for all they can.
This is misleading... (Score:5, Informative)
However, if you end up doubling your computers you come out ahead: you basically get free use of the software until you update your numbers with MS.
This also means you could get free use of software if you only used it for part of a year. For example, if you give MS numbers each January, you could install extra stuff in February, remove it in December, and MS would never have to know you used it.
The EA does end up saving money if you were going to upgrade all the time anyway, or perhaps only skip one version. If you tend to skip two or more versions, the EA would most likely cost you more money.
Re:This is misleading... (Score:3, Informative)
1) Server liscences are NOT covered under the EA (so we are still in the normal Select/SA boat that this article describes for them).
2) You do not actually pay Microsft for what you currently have but what you currently have and what, if anything, you expect to add this year. Also, if you added more than you estimated you settle up next year (ie the EA is a glorified deep discount volume liscence with no free rides).
3) Unlike the s
Newborn License (Score:4, Funny)
All in the name of curbing copyright infringement, mind you.
This situation can be fixed (Score:3, Interesting)
End of problem. Unfortuantely, it's harder to accomplish than anyone can imagine. Which is why you all need to elect me as Emperor for life. And, just like my
Re:This situation can be fixed (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that's how the system works now, and that's how it sould work in the future: One copy per machine or one copy in use at a time on multiple machines. Don't let the "freedom" Linux grants you to cloud your thinking in an economic matter such as this. If it was your way (buy it once, install it anyplace you want) the cost of software would go dramatically up since software makers
Linux licensing is even worse! (Score:3, Funny)
Major headache (Score:5, Interesting)
We purchase all of the new PCs we order with a Microsoft EA SA agreement. It's a nightmare trying to keep track of which boxes at which location have what version OS on them, what kind of upgrades they're covered up through, and so on. There's a dedicated guy just for our department that does nothing but dealing with licensing.
For anybody who's never taken the time to read through some of these contracts, print one out sometime or read through the EULA next time you upgrade Windows and be prepared to be suprised. Honestly, MS plays by their own rules.
The crappy thing is there is no real alternative. There's over 50,000 computers in this organization. Switching these boxen over to linux isn't an option (sorry guys, I love linux as much as the next guy, but the average 50 year-old in HR ISN'T going to be able to use it). And as expensive as dealing with MS is, it's still cheaper than buying 50,000 Macs and running OSX on them. Besides, most propritery medical apps only run on Windows from what I've seen.
Re:Major headache (Score:4, Informative)
sorry guys, I love linux as much as the next guy, but the average 50 year-old in HR ISN'T going to be able to use it
If Linux is properly configured the 50 year-old in HR will be able to use it as well as he/she uses Windows (which may not be very well, but that's another story). And the sysadmin gets an advantage that Linux is much easier to protect from clumsy users. My wife uses Linux at home, she cannot trash the system accidentally. When the kids start messing with the "buttons" they're only going to risk her files not the system.
The only time I would recommend Windows is if there is a critical application that does not have a replacement in Linux. The list of those apps is getting smaller by the day.
Wow, a lot of "Work Up" for nothing special... (Score:3, Interesting)
DAMMIT! STOP MAKING ME DEFEND MICROSOFT!!! ARGH!
BFD (Score:4, Informative)
It seems to be that nobody'd be complaining if they just required the entire payment for three years up-front and said"It's non-transferrable. Cope." People are pissed because Microsoft offers a payment plan, but they won't automatically transfer that plan.
The magic words are 'non-transferrable' (Score:5, Informative)
There are non-transferrable contracts, but those have to be scrutinized carefully. For example, the idea a non-transferrable *END-USER* software license has been invalidated by the courts a number of times. Right of first purchase comes with the right to transfer your license to anyone else. (Do you honestly think there would be any way of transferring licenses for MS software if this weren't the case? There is, as long as it wasn't an OEM copy of Windows... and even then you can transfer it as long as you sell the hardware in tandem.)
Here we have a software purchase agreement which is nontransferrable. It's just that this one is for a big company, and so MS can, perhaps, get away with it.
-fred
Deal Points (Score:5, Informative)
- make sure each legal entity is the licensor of its own licenses (ie. Bluelight should have been the licensor, not Kmart); then when the division is sold or divested, it is transparent to Microsoft (you may lose some volume discount here, of course);
- if you haven't done the above or are selling assets instead of equity, set up a permanent lease of the computers to the buyer instead of transferring ownership; make sure payments are structured (probably through some sort of escrow account or trust) so the lease is a lease and not a sale;
- in a bankruptcy, ask the judge to tell Microsoft to stuff it, which he may well have the power to do, and if he's a Windows user will certainly *want* to do.
Does it need to be said? IANAL.
On a related note, why doesn't some unemployed entrepreneur out there start a company that buys unused MS licenses (for Windows and Office, say) from companies that are downsizing or going out of business, then resell them to large companies that are being audited by MS? I know a few that would pay decent money just to not have to sort out the mess that is their file cabinet full of licenses, even if they do lose SA.
Microsoft and the RIAA are actually useful (Score:5, Insightful)
It usually takes many years to discover how badly a law has been written, because it usually takes many years for people (or companies) to get around to pushing the wording to its logical conclusion. When Microsoft (or the RIAA, etc.) imposes seemingly ridiculously licensing terms on the public, they're actually doing us all a service in the long run, by quickly demonstrating to legislators that the applicable public policies are (in the long run) unworkable.
We know Microsoft isn't going to "win" in the long run (they're losing our data centers already, and eventually they'll lose our desktops and office suites as well), but when they do these extremely silly things they actually help hasten their own eventual demise, by rapidly educating the public (and the policy makers) about what's wrong with current regulation.
Getting laws corrected may feel like it's occuring with glacial slowness to those of us who already understand where things are heading, but it'll actually happen much more quickly than it would otherwise, the worse Microsoft behaves. So I say, heck ya Microsoft! Charge us twice for things you don't deliver...charge us ten times, twenty! Let's show the world what the phrase "illegal monopoly" -really- means.
Re:Microsoft and the RIAA are actually useful (Score:3, Interesting)
Are You so sure they won't "win"? They're working on that damn Palladium cruft that will make all Open Source software either expensive or just pl
Re:Microsoft and the RIAA are actually useful (Score:3, Insightful)
Not exactly new... (Score:3, Informative)
It sounds to me like they are just codifying their past behavior into lawyereese in their EULA.
Ah, How I wish be Microsoft Free! (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been moving my work onto Linux, gradually, for several years now. I'm not an anti-Microsoft zealot by any stretch of the imagination; in fact, ten years ago, I was very pleased with many products coming out of Redmond. But as time has passed, Microsoft's products have bloated while their business practices leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Their licensing policies are the last straw; their greedy stupidities drive me nuts. Example: I bought a machine recently that came with a new copy Windows XP. I installed Linux on that machine, wanting to put the XP on one of my other boxes. But this copy of XP won't upgrade an existing installation of Windows 2000! Microsoft's reponse: I can only install the XP on a the machine it is "assigned" to!
Can someone please explain to me how Microsoft loses anything by my installing a "new" XP over an existing installation? Why do they care what machine I install the product on, so long as I've paid for it? Their arrogance is amazing; it is the result of corporate feudalism [coyotegulch.com]. I, for one, do not wish to be their peasant or peon.
As it is, I do 90% of my work on Linux now; I have only one Windows machine in my office, and it is used to simplify my interface with the MS world. But my next book is being written on Linux using AbiWord, LyX, and TeX, and I no longer take jobs that require MS products. A minor financial hit, to be sure, but a choice I can survive.
Microsoft lost me as a customer because of their attitude, not their product.
Re:Ah, How I wish be Microsoft Free! (Score:3, Funny)
Where will it all lead? (Score:5, Funny)
License agreements are becoming more and more abusive. I decided to jump several steps ahead (short steps) and write the final EULA:
The final license agreement:
- I can do anything I like.
- You have no power.
- You can't say anything bad about me.
- Everything belongs to me.
I knew a 3-year-old who said this. He has since become an adult, which is more than I can say for some executives.What I think people don't realize.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sad but true.
Once Linux becomes capable enough to make it mainstream MS won't be able to keep it out. Because there is little real financial burden on Linux. It's an open source product where ALOT of the work is done, in essence, for free. So MS can't bully it out of the marketplace by putting pressure on their vendors until the OS suffocates itself for lack of funds like a competing comppany would surely do.
It's here to stay because nobody is paying for it, and nobody is financially burdened by it. So it developson it's own, with TONS of fierce competition from MS. And it does nothing but grow and grow.
People should STOP complaining about Ms being a monopoly and START contributing to Linux/GNU.
One of the above posters said if you don't like it, don't use it. Thats dead wrong. As with everything else in life, if you don't like it, do something to change it. Do something to enhance Linux and/or its acceptance.
Re:What I think people don't realize.... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a good reason... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There is a good reason... (Score:5, Informative)
PFC Gruhn
G1/AG Automation, the Dilbert Guy
I Corps, Fort Lewis, WA
"Serve and Sustain"
Customer!!! Back against the wall! Now! (Score:3, Informative)
Lists of Microsoft Abuses:
Overall abuses: Reasons to Avoid Microsoft [lugod.org]. (More than 200 in one year!)
Abuses in one product: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. [futurepower.net]
Sometimes people confuse themselves by thinking of Microsoft as a software company that is abusive. It can be more clear to think of Microsoft as an abuse company that sells software.
Judging from some of the things I've seen, there must be executives at Microsoft who every day energetically think of more ways to put the customer's back against the wall.
I've spent more than 20 years studying things of this nature, and I think what's happening at Microsoft is a general social breakdown. Usually in situations of this sort, things get worse and worse until something breaks.
Other social breakdowns:
The U.S. government: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories [futurepower.net]
and What should be the Response to Violence? [futurepower.net].
Law in the U.S. state of Oregon:
Complicated methods corrupt Oregon government. [hevanet.com]
and Airplanes are safe, but laws often crash. [futurepower.net]
I thought this was common knowledge? (Score:3, Insightful)
The company I work for has one of these agreements with Microsoft, and is about to make payment number two of three in a few months. It's about $20,000 every year for 400 licenses or so. When we informed them we were closing the business before the third payment would come due, they in turn informed us that they would hold us to the letter of the contract, and require that third payment in full.
So if you decide to close your business one month into an MS volume licensing agreement, expect you will have to figure in the next two payments for part of your cost of closing the business. Or else file bankruptcy to get out of it. Either way, Microsoft will inform you that you owe in full to the last penny of your agreement if you try to get out early, and you'll be left holding the bag at the end with whatever version of the software was the "latest" at the time the SA ran out. It sucks, but at the time the decision was made the company was moving to become an all-Microsoft shop. I came in several months after they abandoned that approach (thank goodness), but we are left with the legacy. So we'll be forking out another $20K next year for 360+ unused seats if we want to get the most value out of the contract, even though we'll have a handful of people as a skeleton crew.
This is yet another reason I pushed hard for an all-GNU/Linux approach. Unfortunately, we discovered to our disappointment that GNU/Linux cannot yet handle the needs of a small financial institution like ours. You can chalk that up to lack of good bank-level accounting, payment processing, recovery (in the repossession sense, not tape backups), and loan origination/management software. Eh, well, the stuff for Windows isn't much better than doing it by hand yet either unless you're really big
Oh, yeah, what was my point? Right, if you buy into these agreements, what you save in convenience you pay in terms of contract inflexibility. Know what you're getting into at the get-go, that it's not something you can get out of or "transfer" (despite language to the contrary in the contract which is only for small numbers of machines to individual transferees with somewhat onerous record-keeping requirements), and that you're not really paying for ongoing support, but instead just for the licenses to use the product.
Makes me wish I could start up a new company using solely free software, making annual grants of $20K or so to free software developers...
Brief primer on contract law (Score:5, Informative)
The other point is that contracts usually get judged solely on what's contained inside of them, unless there's fraud, illegality, mistake, mutual recission, and a few other exceptions. So if you want to know what you've gotten yourself into, then RTFC. There are no state or federal laws (with a few small exceptions) that force you to agree to certain things, so it's all in the contract. And you don't need a law degree to understand them, either. Most of the legalese is shorthand so that broad concepts don't have to take pages and pages of explanation. Get a law dictionary (don't use Black's if you're a novice- it explains legal terms with legal terms, get one that uses layperson definitions) and go through it yourself. It might not be pleasant, but you'll understand more than you think you will.
This is false (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, you are proposing to them an alternate contract, which they must accept. Silence can never be a means of contract acceptance. For example, if you are sent a magazine without asking for it with the legal terminology "failure to cancel in 30 days will be construed as acceptance of a subscription and we will bill you," you can't legally be held to their billing request -- and in fact, by not answering you can continue to recieve the magazine for free.
Furthermore, if you sent the contract back to Microsoft, you couldn't use the software until you either recieved a reply or decided to agree to the EULA.
Sorry, but this post suffers from flawed legal reasoning: silence or the failure to respond cannot be considered legal acceptance of a contract. Check with any lawyer...
Perfect solution! (Score:4, Insightful)
There arent that many killer apps not availiable on alternative OS any longer. On a average company you can come a long way with linux if you plan for linux from day one. Same with Apple albeit more expensive hardware is required. The only problem as i can see it is if a company is tailored to run on Microsoft software. With licenses like that it sure looks as if its is well worth the pain to migrate away to ABM.
Im sitting on a friends Windows right now and i feel it lacks a lot of things. The ONLY thing Windows has is more applications, as an OS it is just an empty shell.
Re:And the GPL requires you to release your source (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:4, Funny)
Me: "Hey boss, I don't like the new MS license system. Letstop using Ms products."
Boss: "Sure, what would that entail?"
Me: "Um, well, the accounting, mail, DNS, Database, HR and Engineering servers would have to be completely redone, half of our software would have to go as well. We would also need to replace about half of our support staff with more expensive staff."
Boss: "Why haven't I fired you yet?"
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
-hey, there's this company that wants us to pay them even if we stop using their product and there's an extra contract included that gives them rights to anything we have on our systems if they would want it. the contract also includes an extortion option for them we can do nothing about, and the system is going to go through expensive forced migration to another backwards incompatible system in short time, and this we can do nothing about either if we want our business to be safe. oh, and there's an alternative for using them that would free our balls from their fist.
-why exactly are we doing business with this company again?
surely, not as black'n'white as that, but if executives actually read and understood half of the stuff they agree with ms...
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
No need to jump off the cliff, I have made this suggestion many times to people who dislike microsoft's policies and are "stuck", basically, when it comes time to upgrade a certain product, consider the alternative, and slowly move on to another solution, just take your time, eventually, 3-4 years you will be rid of ms completly, with a very low cost as the transition will have been slow.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, at least not in the example he used. The problem he described wasn't that the stuff wasn't unavailble, the problem was that it'd cost them money. The ability to move is there, he's not being prevented from switching platforms. His company was too reliant on one vendor.
This can easily happen whether the vendor is a monopoly or not.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, if I really hate some vendor I'm a customer of, I simply dump them and go somewhere else. The only time I can't do this is if it's a utility monopoly, like the trash service. The phone system used to be like this too, but now I've dumped Qwest and gotten a cellphone, so I have no need for that monopoly anymore. MS is a monopoly too, in the sense that they have control of 90%+ of some markets, but just like Qwest vs. cellphones, there are alternatives out there for those willing to go through the trouble.
Reading articles here on
Re:Nuts to that (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyhow, anyone who gets this licensing scheme rammed down their throat should probably send the bill to the AG and the DOJ.