Lies,Damn lies and licence interpretations.

re: Lies,Damn lies and licence interpretations.

Mike DiPetrillo — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:27:27 GMT

"We’ve been better in this regard than most of the industry"

That's one thing we can both agree on. Microsoft has done a fantastic job of showing the industry that you can change your licensing to make it work with virtualization better. I wish others out there would follow suit (notably Oracle). I look forward to what licensing changes will come about in 2009 as more and more things go virtual.

re: Lies,Damn lies and licence interpretations.

Mike Moore — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:37:38 GMT

The following is the part of the reason I get frustrated with Microsoft over licensing. You answer questions with more questions not answers. Why not say "the answer is YES"

“If the only thing my clients access is Oracle on Windows do I need a CAL ?” The answer is – “Is it on Windows ?”

re: Lies,Damn lies and licence interpretations.

jamesone — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:50:13 GMT

Mike, I see your point and then again ... I thought it was clear. "A client which accesses something on Windows needs a client access licence for that version of Windows.". People ask "suppose I only use some third party software on Windows ?" TO which the response is Did you get the first bit ? Actually giving a case by case yes or no is less helpful than telling people the principle.

Hyper-V licensing changes

James O'Neill's blog — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:46:34 GMT

A few days ago I wrote about our licensing for Hyper-V. The boys at VMware had picked up that we required