Exchange Server comes with a client license for up to 5 clients only. This means that only 5 connections are available, any more would be refused. The company (or owner) may choose to purchase more client licenses in 5 - 10 - 25 license packs from MS for more connections. It's the same way with their Terminal Services as well. Think of Terminal Services in the same way as we use SSH for system administration. We establish a secure shell in Linux to administer the system or run programs on the server, MS uses Terminal Services or "Remote Desktop Connection" to do the same on an MS server. One must purchase the right amount of licenses to allow enough connections.
On 5/16/07, Billy Crook billycrook@gmail.com wrote:
You have to license exchange clients in addition to paying for the exchange server and the outlook client? What a piece of shit!
On 5/15/07, RtX riverty@gmail.com wrote:
My boss and I had this conversation today. A lot of what Microsoft is
saying
with this claim is that they want compensation for accessing their proprietary services like Exchange and such.
It's screwy. A Blackberry (a non-MS product) can POP an Exchange server
for
free but if the Linux community writes a piece of code that will
interact
with an MS Exchange server, then this is infringement. There are even
ways
to POP an Exchange server without it counting as a "connection" and therefore not subject to client fees that MS would otherwise be getting. There are other examples like including (or offering) the codecs to play
MS
video or audio streams. MS feels that they should get money (of course)
for
sucking streams using their fat codecs.
I, and others, feel that this is a FUD stunt to try and gain back as
much
server and desktop real estate as they can. Vista is nothing but Windows
XP
(turd) painted in fruity colors (painted turd) that is killing them in expected revenue. Sales are not what they wanted and they are really
pushing
hard to get as much money as they can, for as long as they can. Business
are
listening. A company will not gamble on Linux, when the possibility of having an IP war with MS hangs over their heads. All they want to do is
make
the shit they make or sell the shit they sell. They are not in the IT industry and don't understand the evils that MS does.
Either way, it sucks. Microsoft is a very bad company.
On 5/15/07, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/07, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com > wrote:
On 5/15/07, Earle Beason Earle-Beason@kc.rr.com wrote:
Anybody else know of any possible patents that could have been
violated
by the open source project as Microsoft has claimed?
MS isn't going to tell. Doing so will allow developers to code
around
them, or will allow the Software Freedom Law Center to work to prove the patent invalid. They will just use this FUD to extort money
from
large weenie companies who are scared of legal threats. By
revealing
exactly what patents are infringed, they open the door to people working very quickly to remove the infringing parts, and thus making the code base immune from further MS claims on those patents.
Jon.
In all fairness, not all patents can be coded around of.
-- Fedora Core 6 and proud _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-- RtX...
Ty Unes - Overland Park, Ks. riverty@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
I knew that TS, fileserving, and SQL worked like that but didn't know they had extended that madness to exchange.
On 5/16/07, RtX riverty@gmail.com wrote:
Exchange Server comes with a client license for up to 5 clients only. This means that only 5 connections are available, any more would be refused. The company (or owner) may choose to purchase more client licenses in 5 - 10 - 25 license packs from MS for more connections. It's the same way with their Terminal Services as well. Think of Terminal Services in the same way as we use SSH for system administration. We establish a secure shell in Linux to administer the system or run programs on the server, MS uses Terminal Services or "Remote Desktop Connection" to do the same on an MS server. One must purchase the right amount of licenses to allow enough connections.
On 5/16/07, Billy Crook billycrook@gmail.com wrote:
You have to license exchange clients in addition to paying for the exchange server and the outlook client? What a piece of shit!
On 5/15/07, RtX riverty@gmail.com wrote:
My boss and I had this conversation today. A lot of what Microsoft is
saying
with this claim is that they want compensation for accessing their proprietary services like Exchange and such.
It's screwy. A Blackberry (a non-MS product) can POP an Exchange server
for
free but if the Linux community writes a piece of code that will
interact
with an MS Exchange server, then this is infringement. There are even
ways
to POP an Exchange server without it counting as a "connection" and therefore not subject to client fees that MS would otherwise be getting. There are other examples like including (or offering) the codecs to play
MS
video or audio streams. MS feels that they should get money (of course)
for
sucking streams using their fat codecs.
I, and others, feel that this is a FUD stunt to try and gain back as
much
server and desktop real estate as they can. Vista is nothing but Windows
XP
(turd) painted in fruity colors (painted turd) that is killing them in expected revenue. Sales are not what they wanted and they are really
pushing
hard to get as much money as they can, for as long as they can. Business
are
listening. A company will not gamble on Linux, when the possibility of having an IP war with MS hangs over their heads. All they want to do is
make
the shit they make or sell the shit they sell. They are not in the IT industry and don't understand the evils that MS does.
Either way, it sucks. Microsoft is a very bad company.
On 5/15/07, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/07, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com > wrote:
On 5/15/07, Earle Beason Earle-Beason@kc.rr.com wrote:
Anybody else know of any possible patents that could have been
violated
by the open source project as Microsoft has claimed?
MS isn't going to tell. Doing so will allow developers to code
around
them, or will allow the Software Freedom Law Center to work to prove the patent invalid. They will just use this FUD to extort money
from
large weenie companies who are scared of legal threats. By
revealing
exactly what patents are infringed, they open the door to people working very quickly to remove the infringing parts, and thus making the code base immune from further MS claims on those patents.
Jon.
In all fairness, not all patents can be coded around of.
-- Fedora Core 6 and proud _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-- RtX...
Ty Unes - Overland Park, Ks. riverty@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
--
RtX...
Ty Unes - Overland Park, Ks. riverty@gmail.com
On 5/16/07, RtX riverty@gmail.com wrote:
Exchange Server comes with a client license for up to 5 clients only. This means that only 5 connections are available, any more would be refused. The company (or owner) may choose to purchase more client licenses in 5 - 10 - 25 license packs from MS for more connections.
I've read about the MS license model before, and I've even helped a friend buy a server and a copy of Win2k3 for a Win only client/server/master program the payroll/accountants used. From my understanding, you have to buy a copy of Windows, er, buy a license of Windows which also comes with a copy of the software you just licensed... Plus any additional client access licenses (CAL) you need if you need more than the default for your copy of Windows. THEN you have to buy a client license to connect to each of the CALs you are dealing with, which also most likely means a desktop license for the Windows running on the client, or is the client license a part of a desktop Windows license, and thus is the MS stink mentioned earlier in the thread?
I guess that's like saying only IBM reps can come change the paper in your feed tray because you only licensed the right to print from it and not to self service it. If you do it yourself you're gonna owe them the money you would have payed to have them come out and do it for you. Or something.
Jon.
Last I checked, there are two CAL models used by MS: per-server and per-seat. Per-server means you buy a set number of licenses for that server, and that server will never permit more than that many connections. This is really the only way to legally connect non-MS clients to a CAL restricted service. With per-seat, the server allows unlimited connections from machines that each have their own individual Microsoft CAL.
Note, though, that last I checked the MS software did not actually have any mechanism for verifying the per-seat licensing model. It was primarily used in situations where the organization purchased site-licenses that granted per-seat CALs for every machine they owned. MS has been beefing up their licensing enforcement since then, so I wouldn't be surprised if they actually verify them now.
~Bradley
Jon Pruente wrote:
On 5/16/07, RtX riverty@gmail.com wrote:
Exchange Server comes with a client license for up to 5 clients only. This means that only 5 connections are available, any more would be refused. The company (or owner) may choose to purchase more client licenses in 5 - 10 - 25 license packs from MS for more connections.
I've read about the MS license model before, and I've even helped a friend buy a server and a copy of Win2k3 for a Win only client/server/master program the payroll/accountants used. From my understanding, you have to buy a copy of Windows, er, buy a license of Windows which also comes with a copy of the software you just licensed... Plus any additional client access licenses (CAL) you need if you need more than the default for your copy of Windows. THEN you have to buy a client license to connect to each of the CALs you are dealing with, which also most likely means a desktop license for the Windows running on the client, or is the client license a part of a desktop Windows license, and thus is the MS stink mentioned earlier in the thread?
I guess that's like saying only IBM reps can come change the paper in your feed tray because you only licensed the right to print from it and not to self service it. If you do it yourself you're gonna owe them the money you would have payed to have them come out and do it for you. Or something.
Jon. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Suffice it to say that in any big organization that licensing is complex enough to require a dedicated person to handle all license agreements (inventory). It also requires a special section of training in the MCSE tracks.
On 5/16/07, Bradley Hook <> wrote:
Last I checked, there are two CAL models used by MS: per-server and per-seat. Per-server means you buy a set number of licenses for that server, and that server will never permit more than that many connections. This is really the only way to legally connect non-MS clients to a CAL restricted service. With per-seat, the server allows unlimited connections from machines that each have their own individual Microsoft CAL.
Note, though, that last I checked the MS software did not actually have any mechanism for verifying the per-seat licensing model. It was primarily used in situations where the organization purchased site-licenses that granted per-seat CALs for every machine they owned. MS has been beefing up their licensing enforcement since then, so I wouldn't be surprised if they actually verify them now.
~Bradley
Jon Pruente wrote:
On 5/16/07, RtX <> wrote:
Exchange Server comes with a client license for up to 5 clients only.
This
means that only 5 connections are available, any more would be refused.
The
company (or owner) may choose to purchase more client licenses in 5 -
10 -
25 license packs from MS for more connections.
I've read about the MS license model before, and I've even helped a friend buy a server and a copy of Win2k3 for a Win only client/server/master program the payroll/accountants used. From my understanding, you have to buy a copy of Windows, er, buy a license of Windows which also comes with a copy of the software you just licensed... Plus any additional client access licenses (CAL) you need if you need more than the default for your copy of Windows. THEN you have to buy a client license to connect to each of the CALs you are dealing with, which also most likely means a desktop license for the Windows running on the client, or is the client license a part of a desktop Windows license, and thus is the MS stink mentioned earlier in the thread?
I guess that's like saying only IBM reps can come change the paper in your feed tray because you only licensed the right to print from it and not to self service it. If you do it yourself you're gonna owe them the money you would have payed to have them come out and do it for you. Or something.
Jon.
-
Billy Crook -
Bradley Hook -
Brian Kelsay -
Jon Pruente -
RtX