Re: licensing

From: Alvin Bruney [MVP] (vapor)
Date: 05/07/04 

Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 16:01:06 -0500

"plan to install later..." - do you know
how this is interpreted ?
No. I do not. Interpretation is solely at the discretion of Microsoft and
the governing contracts/aggreements.

If I were pressed for an answer on this, I'd first qualify my response with:
I do not work for Microsoft nor do I represent their interest.

Here is my opinion.

Firstly, shared licensing does not and was not intended to target the I.S.V.
It primarily targets large corporations where installation and setup of
applications is significantly expensive in terms of time and resources. If
such a corporation, with x amount of users, buys x amount of a qualifying
product, it is easy to deduce that the corporation fully intends to deploy
to x number of users irrespective of time frame. In this case, shared
licensing is a valid option. You can see how this picture does not apply to
an ISV because typically, the ISV develops for an open market and does not
exercise control over the user's desktop and consequently cannot enforce
licensing terms of use.

Explain how you intend to use the component and I may have a more specific
answer for your case. It is possible even as an ISV to operate safely with
the bounds of licensing. 

-- 
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27***
"Michael Vardinghus" <michaelvardinghus@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:OWcI36GNEHA.3572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Alvin
>
> But there is the "work-around" where you don't have to install a 
> qualifying
> product....and you use the sentence "plan to install later..." - do you 
> know
> how this is interpreted ? Does it mean that 2-3 users can implement web
> components or can the web componentes be used as a large scale 
> interactively
> olap reporting environment for years without implementing XP ?
>
> I'm not in a company - i'm a self-employed consultant...
>
> \Michael Vardinghus
>
> "Alvin Bruney [MVP]" <vapor at steaming post office> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:OhjklUDNEHA.2780@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> > Plan to deploy....?" Now ?... two years...?
>> >
>> > Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use
> the
>> > xp component ?
>>
>> This portion talks about providing interactive use for users who do not
> have
>> a qualifying product installed but are within a corporate setting. Your
> plan
>> to deploy the product is part of the IT dept. policy based on your select
>> agreement.
>>
>> Typically, non-interactive static use most often suffices for a large
>> majority of applications - for example, rendering chart data client-side.
>> Some applications require interactive usage. Interactive usage is defined
> as
>> the ability to massage the data contained in the component. In this case,
>> the user will need to have a qualifying product installed.
>>
>> > Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use
> the
>> > xp component ?
>>
>> static, non-interactive use is always free and does not need any
> qualifying
>> product installation.
>> That type of aggreement is not a license. Interactive usage requires a
>> license which is available thru a qualifying product installation. If you
>> are not able to install a qualifying product but are part of a 
>> corporation
>> which has that type of aggreement, then you may use the components in
>> interactive mode as long as your IT personnel plan to deploy the
> components
>> at a later date. The interactivity is provided via a shared license 
>> scheme
>> specially designed for this purpose. Please see these articles for 
>> further
>> clarification:
>>
>> licensing
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555075
>> shared licensing
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555094
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>> Alvin Bruney
>> [ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
>> Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27***
>> "Michael Vardinghus" <michaelvardinghus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uCh2PsBNEHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> > But how is this to be interpreted?
>> >
>> > Organizations that own an Enterprise, Select, or Maintenance Agreement
> for
>> > Office XP but have not deployed Office XP yet, or plan to deploy Office
> XP
>> > in phases, can share component-based Web pages with users who have not
> yet
>> > installed Office XP by using the licensing mechanism supported by
> Internet
>> > Explorer.
>> >
>> > Plan to deploy....?" Now ?... two years...?
>> >
>> > Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use
> the
>> > xp component ?
>> >
>> > \Michael Vardinghus
>> >
>> > "Michael Vardinghus" <michaelvardinghus@hotmail.com> skrev i en
> meddelelse
>> > news:e%2397hnBNEHA.1104@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> By reading this I seem to conclude that in order to use the web
> component
>> > on
>> >> a client i need to buy a full xp license for that client ?
>> >>
>> >> http://24.204.143.27/dotnet/tidbits/default.htm
>> >>
>> >> Is this true ? What if the organization isn't ready to install xp ?
> Will
>> > the
>> >> still need to buy a whole client ?
>> >>
>> >> What are we talking about here approximately pr client for an
>> >> organization
>> >> that has office 2000 already ?
>> >>
>> >> \Michael V.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Quantcast