Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
Robert, I think that did a good amount of research and I do in fact have my facts straight. It appears rather that you just simply didn't read my message fully. At this moment, SPLA isn't a good deal for me, though I recognize that in some situations it can be. I like to buy full retail versions of Windows in the gray market of eBay, and when you compare gray market prices to SPLA, the gray market compares much more favorably when you are buying for yourself. I also have been basing all of my servers on dual processor systems as a way to maximize the value of the software running on them, and the terms for dual-processor licenses under SPLA is not competitive whatsoever for servers. In my original reply, I linked to a pricing sheet that is freely available from the public website of one of Microsoft's two main suppliers of SPLA licenses, so I am in fact aware of the prices. As I said before, this is something like the third iteration of a pay-as-you-go licensing scheme by Microsoft in just 5 years. In fact, up until last year you also had to be a MCP and join the Microsoft Partner Program at $1,500/year. For a small hosting provider, adding that cost overhead and time to one or a few licenses makes it cost prohibitive. While they did change this, they only did so recently, and parts of their site are still out of date with the changes. The frequency of changes and their admission on their own site that they screwed up badly in the past by having confusing terms and uncompetitive pricing doesn't make me feel at ease with this. I also don't like grossly uncompetitive markets such as limited availability and a requirement for membership in three different Microsoft programs. By limiting access to primarily two resellers of SPLA licenses, they have also created an anti-competitive market. I also don't work for Microsoft, and I don't wish to be reporting back to them or their partners on a monthly basis for the type of operations that I currently have. Microsoft didn't create SPLA to lose money. Part of this was due to competitive pressures from the low overhead of a rapid Linux build-out in bulk hosting, but another part of it was clearly to establish a method of charging based on the success of their customers (per-processor licensing) instead of being based on the software's capabilities itself, and to force more rapid adoption of their latest technologies by removing the asset of purchased software and lowering the overhead to upgrading. Unfortunately for Microsoft, Windows 2000 still works great as a Web server 6 years after it's release. If Microsoft wanted to stay competitive in all senses, they would have made SPLA completely optional as far as their EULA goes, but they purposefully change it. This change was anti-consumer. I don't like anti-consumer changes. I'm considering SPLA for possibly doing some managed server co-location because I recognize the high upfront costs and competitive pressures where some expect their colo to provide such things in one package. I agree that SPLA makes perfect sense for single processor servers leased in bulk to customers. For my own servers however, I already own licenses for everything and I would definitely be paying substantially more with SPLA over the life of the software under the present terms. I purchased my retail versions of Microsoft software to be used exactly as they were clearly and consistently represented to me by Microsoft, and I will continue to use them that way. In the mean time, I am going to start working on getting a Linux hosting environment going because I don't want to get trapped by Microsoft's licensing going forward. Matt Robert E. Spivack wrote: Matt, get the facts before you “rant”. If you are running a business then you should be adhering to the rules. I can’t believe you have been hosting sites/email services for so long and not been aware of SPLA. I think your rant is totally offbase. Let me give you (and others lurking) the overall view: The SPLA is an incredibly great program for service providers (which you are). It allows you to completely avoid buying expensive software upfront and is entirely a pay-as-you-go program. For those not familiar with it, you report to Microsoft on a monthly basis what product licenses you are using and you pay only for the licenses in use. Specific example: You are a small hosting company and land a client that wants a dedicated server with dual Xeons running SQL Server 2000 or 2005. With a retail license (which isn’t legal for hosting anyway) you would have to immediately go and buy a two-processor license for SQL Server. At “going rates”, that is approx $10,000 retail (before discounts). Now, after two months, that client goes broke, can’t pay their bills and obviously cancels their contract (or you cancel it for default). Now you are stuck with $10,000 of software and no cash. Under SPLA, you would sim
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
Actually, SPLA is what fuels part of that market. There are many datacenters out there that will basically lease you a server for a fixed price and give you unlimited everything and all hardware, hardware support (and some software support), and they all do SPLA for Windows boxes. They approach the market from the perspective that marketing price is the way to go, kind of like some car dealers, and it does work for them. I met a guy that just graduated from college and runs a Web hosting company that sells sites beginning at $10/year. I don't think that is wise, but he does make some money. I just cater to a different type of customer, and for a serious business, the extra money they pay with me is not something that they think much about. Commoditization of these markets is however a serious concern of mine, and unfortunately software costs are going up rapidly while service prices are going down. At least the hardware is dropping in price to offset part of this trend. Matt John T (Lists) wrote: On the one hand, if it that was upheld as true as you say and enforceable, do you think that would help get rid of all those fly-by-night hosting companies out there offering unlimited this and unlimited that with a SQL backend for $9.95 per month? John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 3:07 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License John, I haven't looked at the SQL Server license, but the Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition license states: "Renting, leasing, or lending the Software (including providing commercial hosting services) is also prohibited." It makes no difference as to who's software you are using on top of Windows, just that Windows is the OS. Clearly Microsoft's intention is to have service providers of any sort running Windows buy into the SPLA licensing. I don't however believe that it is enforceable based on the things that I had brought up. Microsoft would likely lose in court at this point if they tried to press the matter, however, in the future, things may be different and it is clear that they are laying the ground work for that. Matt John T (Lists) wrote: That is where the question comes in. I am not hosting a client or providing a client a service on a server. I have listened in on a conversation between a big client of mine and a lawyer and the lawyer’s thought is that I am providing a package product, in one case a web and e-mail hosting service. However that package includes DNS services, logs and other items depending on service level. That package is facilitated by different software provided by different servers located on various servers. As such, it is that lawyer’s thought that there is no requirement for a service provider licensing. In his opinion, where the service provider licensing would come into affect, no matter what vendor, is when a server or software or what ever is purchased and/or dedicated and/or designated to a client. This conversation came up when this client of mine was having their website rebuilt which would require a MS SQL server. The question posed was if a client requires say SQL server, and I go out and purchase and install it and then charge them a premium for it, who owns it, me or the client. The outcome was that if SPLA was not in existence, then if I was charging that client a premium for it and never used SQL for anything else, then the client owned it. However, if I bought it and I used it, and then offered the client to use it as part of his website, and he had no control over it and could not connect to it, then I owned it. He said the same with SPLA. If I used SQL and then allowed his website to use it but he could not connect to it to run sp or queries and I advertised a hosting service that included SQL to all at whatever service level, then a SPLA is not used. John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:34 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License The popular understanding is exactly the opposite in fact, but even Microsoft's own reps don't always tell it the same way. The fact is that anyone hosting "clients" is violating the standard EULA on Windows since they made that change, and SPLA is required. Whether or not that is enforceable is an open question. Matt John T (Lists) wrote: Matt, my understanding is that is the server is hosting multiple web sites for multiple clients, and therefore is not dedicated to any one client, the SPLA does not apply. If a server is dedicated for one clie
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
Unfortunately not. Remember, that’s a shared sql server account – not a dedicated sql server for $9.95/month. If somebody wants to put 500 sql accounts on a single Celeron server, well, caveat emptor. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John T (Lists) Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 3:41 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License On the one hand, if it that was upheld as true as you say and enforceable, do you think that would help get rid of all those fly-by-night hosting companies out there offering unlimited this and unlimited that with a SQL backend for $9.95 per month? John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 3:07 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License John, I haven't looked at the SQL Server license, but the Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition license states: "Renting, leasing, or lending the Software (including providing commercial hosting services) is also prohibited." It makes no difference as to who's software you are using on top of Windows, just that Windows is the OS. Clearly Microsoft's intention is to have service providers of any sort running Windows buy into the SPLA licensing. I don't however believe that it is enforceable based on the things that I had brought up. Microsoft would likely lose in court at this point if they tried to press the matter, however, in the future, things may be different and it is clear that they are laying the ground work for that. Matt John T (Lists) wrote: That is where the question comes in. I am not hosting a client or providing a client a service on a server. I have listened in on a conversation between a big client of mine and a lawyer and the lawyer’s thought is that I am providing a package product, in one case a web and e-mail hosting service. However that package includes DNS services, logs and other items depending on service level. That package is facilitated by different software provided by different servers located on various servers. As such, it is that lawyer’s thought that there is no requirement for a service provider licensing. In his opinion, where the service provider licensing would come into affect, no matter what vendor, is when a server or software or what ever is purchased and/or dedicated and/or designated to a client. This conversation came up when this client of mine was having their website rebuilt which would require a MS SQL server. The question posed was if a client requires say SQL server, and I go out and purchase and install it and then charge them a premium for it, who owns it, me or the client. The outcome was that if SPLA was not in existence, then if I was charging that client a premium for it and never used SQL for anything else, then the client owned it. However, if I bought it and I used it, and then offered the client to use it as part of his website, and he had no control over it and could not connect to it, then I owned it. He said the same with SPLA. If I used SQL and then allowed his website to use it but he could not connect to it to run sp or queries and I advertised a hosting service that included SQL to all at whatever service level, then a SPLA is not used. John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:34 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License The popular understanding is exactly the opposite in fact, but even Microsoft's own reps don't always tell it the same way. The fact is that anyone hosting "clients" is violating the standard EULA on Windows since they made that change, and SPLA is required. Whether or not that is enforceable is an open question. Matt John T (Lists) wrote: Matt, my understanding is that is the server is hosting multiple web sites for multiple clients, and therefore is not dedicated to any one client, the SPLA does not apply. If a server is dedicated for one client, whether that server be for web sites, SQL, ACT, Quickbooks, whatever, then that server must be licensed via SPLA. John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:05 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License Shayne (and Kevin), Rant = on I see now that under the SPLA program, they seem to indicate in a very round-about way that you have to use SPLA, in fact, you have to purchase a separate license per processor for anonymous access to IIS over the Internet.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
Matt, get the facts before you “rant”. If you are running a business then you should be adhering to the rules. I can’t believe you have been hosting sites/email services for so long and not been aware of SPLA. I think your rant is totally offbase. Let me give you (and others lurking) the overall view: The SPLA is an incredibly great program for service providers (which you are). It allows you to completely avoid buying expensive software upfront and is entirely a pay-as-you-go program. For those not familiar with it, you report to Microsoft on a monthly basis what product licenses you are using and you pay only for the licenses in use. Specific example: You are a small hosting company and land a client that wants a dedicated server with dual Xeons running SQL Server 2000 or 2005. With a retail license (which isn’t legal for hosting anyway) you would have to immediately go and buy a two-processor license for SQL Server. At “going rates”, that is approx $10,000 retail (before discounts). Now, after two months, that client goes broke, can’t pay their bills and obviously cancels their contract (or you cancel it for default). Now you are stuck with $10,000 of software and no cash. Under SPLA, you would simply report to Microsoft that you are no longer using the license and pay nothing to them anymore. Although the pricing for SPLA is not public, it is widely available but I won’t give the actual pricing here to avoid any problems. Suffice it to say, the pricing is very reasonable. Basically, Microsoft has taken most prices and calculated a monthly fee based on the equivalent software price divided down over a 3-year period. Since most financial types will depreciate software as capital equipment over a 3-year useful life, you can see that the “high level” pricing philosophy used here is very reasonable and is not a gouge nor is it a huge discount that is unfair to corporate or enterprises buying retail. Of course, an important distinction is that you pay SPLA for as long as the license is in use, you never “own” it so you don’t stop paying after 3-years. But given the churn and business conditions, along with the fact that software versions change more rapidly than 3-year terms, I don’t see this as having any practical financial impact. Microsoft created the SPLA program to make expensive, enterprise class software available legally to hosting companies that are small and entrepreneurial and not just the big telcos. You can get almost ANYTHING on SPLA. BizTalk Server, Content Management Server, Exchange Server, and many other products without investing $50,000 or more in licences if you bought retail or open license. Anyone that thinks this program is bad needs to close their business and flip burgers or something else. Unlike all other licensing options (retail, open corporate license, etc.) there is no volume discount with SPLA. This totally blew me away when I first heard it. Yup, that means the price we pay per month for Windows OS or SQL Server is the same price that Rackspace, EDS, IBM, or ATT pays. So when you see the price list and look at offerings in the market, you can get an idea of what the gross margin must be for someone selling a cheap server for $50 or $75/month with (legal) windows OS included. Unfortunately, within Microsoft, the SPLA program is “small” compared to many of their other business lines. This means that many Microsoft reps, especially those that sell retail or corporate licenses do not know much about it and often give out conflicting info. If you’ve ever worked in a big company (and I have worked in HP, Cisco, etc.) you will understand that salespeople in these bigger orgs are completely comp plan driven and only know/push/sell/understand the limited portion of the product line that affects their own paycheck. This is not unusual. There is a dedicated, hardworking, and motivated “SPLA” group within Microsoft. Visit their website and drill down, or call your regional Microsoft Office and get connected with them. They are the ones that can answer all your questions and clarify any confusion over licensing, costs, and participation. Bottom line – do not ask any Microsoft employee about SPLA unless they are directly involved – the info you get will be wrong, erroneous, and conflicting at the least. Microsoft has changed the program to allow small companies to qualify as “windows hosting” without needing the cost and time of having MSCP engineers trained, certified and on staff. You also do not need to be a certified partner – you only need to be a registered partner which
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
On the one hand, if it that was upheld as true as you say and enforceable, do you think that would help get rid of all those fly-by-night hosting companies out there offering unlimited this and unlimited that with a SQL backend for $9.95 per month? John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 3:07 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License John, I haven't looked at the SQL Server license, but the Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition license states: "Renting, leasing, or lending the Software (including providing commercial hosting services) is also prohibited." It makes no difference as to who's software you are using on top of Windows, just that Windows is the OS. Clearly Microsoft's intention is to have service providers of any sort running Windows buy into the SPLA licensing. I don't however believe that it is enforceable based on the things that I had brought up. Microsoft would likely lose in court at this point if they tried to press the matter, however, in the future, things may be different and it is clear that they are laying the ground work for that. Matt John T (Lists) wrote: That is where the question comes in. I am not hosting a client or providing a client a service on a server. I have listened in on a conversation between a big client of mine and a lawyer and the lawyer’s thought is that I am providing a package product, in one case a web and e-mail hosting service. However that package includes DNS services, logs and other items depending on service level. That package is facilitated by different software provided by different servers located on various servers. As such, it is that lawyer’s thought that there is no requirement for a service provider licensing. In his opinion, where the service provider licensing would come into affect, no matter what vendor, is when a server or software or what ever is purchased and/or dedicated and/or designated to a client. This conversation came up when this client of mine was having their website rebuilt which would require a MS SQL server. The question posed was if a client requires say SQL server, and I go out and purchase and install it and then charge them a premium for it, who owns it, me or the client. The outcome was that if SPLA was not in existence, then if I was charging that client a premium for it and never used SQL for anything else, then the client owned it. However, if I bought it and I used it, and then offered the client to use it as part of his website, and he had no control over it and could not connect to it, then I owned it. He said the same with SPLA. If I used SQL and then allowed his website to use it but he could not connect to it to run sp or queries and I advertised a hosting service that included SQL to all at whatever service level, then a SPLA is not used. John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:34 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License The popular understanding is exactly the opposite in fact, but even Microsoft's own reps don't always tell it the same way. The fact is that anyone hosting "clients" is violating the standard EULA on Windows since they made that change, and SPLA is required. Whether or not that is enforceable is an open question. Matt John T (Lists) wrote: Matt, my understanding is that is the server is hosting multiple web sites for multiple clients, and therefore is not dedicated to any one client, the SPLA does not apply. If a server is dedicated for one client, whether that server be for web sites, SQL, ACT, Quickbooks, whatever, then that server must be licensed via SPLA. John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:05 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License Shayne (and Kevin), Rant = on I see now that under the SPLA program, they seem to indicate in a very round-about way that you have to use SPLA, in fact, you have to purchase a separate license per processor for anonymous access to IIS over the Internet. What a crock of s#*t that is. This is the third such program that I recall seeing Microsoft push on the down-low trying to claim some sort of special fees for using IIS on the Internet. It is clear as day that they don't market their product in a manner consistent with the SPLA program. They updated their EULA however to include the following; "Renting, leasing, or lending the Software (including providing commercial hosti
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
John, I haven't looked at the SQL Server license, but the Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition license states: "Renting, leasing, or lending the Software (including providing commercial hosting services) is also prohibited." It makes no difference as to who's software you are using on top of Windows, just that Windows is the OS. Clearly Microsoft's intention is to have service providers of any sort running Windows buy into the SPLA licensing. I don't however believe that it is enforceable based on the things that I had brought up. Microsoft would likely lose in court at this point if they tried to press the matter, however, in the future, things may be different and it is clear that they are laying the ground work for that. Matt John T (Lists) wrote: That is where the question comes in. I am not hosting a client or providing a client a service on a server. I have listened in on a conversation between a big client of mine and a lawyer and the lawyer’s thought is that I am providing a package product, in one case a web and e-mail hosting service. However that package includes DNS services, logs and other items depending on service level. That package is facilitated by different software provided by different servers located on various servers. As such, it is that lawyer’s thought that there is no requirement for a service provider licensing. In his opinion, where the service provider licensing would come into affect, no matter what vendor, is when a server or software or what ever is purchased and/or dedicated and/or designated to a client. This conversation came up when this client of mine was having their website rebuilt which would require a MS SQL server. The question posed was if a client requires say SQL server, and I go out and purchase and install it and then charge them a premium for it, who owns it, me or the client. The outcome was that if SPLA was not in existence, then if I was charging that client a premium for it and never used SQL for anything else, then the client owned it. However, if I bought it and I used it, and then offered the client to use it as part of his website, and he had no control over it and could not connect to it, then I owned it. He said the same with SPLA. If I used SQL and then allowed his website to use it but he could not connect to it to run sp or queries and I advertised a hosting service that included SQL to all at whatever service level, then a SPLA is not used. John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:34 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License The popular understanding is exactly the opposite in fact, but even Microsoft's own reps don't always tell it the same way. The fact is that anyone hosting "clients" is violating the standard EULA on Windows since they made that change, and SPLA is required. Whether or not that is enforceable is an open question. Matt John T (Lists) wrote: Matt, my understanding is that is the server is hosting multiple web sites for multiple clients, and therefore is not dedicated to any one client, the SPLA does not apply. If a server is dedicated for one client, whether that server be for web sites, SQL, ACT, Quickbooks, whatever, then that server must be licensed via SPLA. John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:05 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License Shayne (and Kevin), Rant = on I see now that under the SPLA program, they seem to indicate in a very round-about way that you have to use SPLA, in fact, you have to purchase a separate license per processor for anonymous access to IIS over the Internet. What a crock of s#*t that is. This is the third such program that I recall seeing Microsoft push on the down-low trying to claim some sort of special fees for using IIS on the Internet. It is clear as day that they don't market their product in a manner consistent with the SPLA program. They updated their EULA however to include the following; "Renting, leasing, or lending the Software (including providing commercial hosting services) is also prohibited." This means that everyone using IMail, SmarterMail, or whatever app that runs on a Windows platform and is accessed over the Internet must switch to SPLA and pay a per-processor monthly license if you provide services to anyone that is not a part of your immediate company. Shrink-wrapped agreements like this aren't by default legally enforceable, especially when a product is marketed one way and the license says differently. The idea of pr
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
Craig, I don't know whether or not you figured this out, but it is somewhat rare that someone from Declude posts to this list, and most of the conversations are between fellow administrators and can span a wide range of topics. Even you are guilty of this: http://www.mail-archive.com/declude.junkmail@declude.com/msg28338.html As I pointed out, this license issue affects everyone that offers a service of any sort from a Windows platform. It's not like I'm sharing recipes...though I'm sure that has happened before around here. Matt Craig Edmonds wrote: um I thought this was a junk mail list aimed at discussing Declude? I did not know it was to rant about Microsoft stuff? Kindest Regards Craig Edmonds 123 Marbella Internet W: www.123marbella.com E : [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 9:05 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License Shayne (and Kevin), Rant = on I see now that under the SPLA program, they seem to indicate in a very round-about way that you have to use SPLA, in fact, you have to purchase a separate license per processor for anonymous access to IIS over the Internet. What a crock of s#*t that is. This is the third such program that I recall seeing Microsoft push on the down-low trying to claim some sort of special fees for using IIS on the Internet. It is clear as day that they don't market their product in a manner consistent with the SPLA program. They updated their EULA however to include the following; "Renting, leasing, or lending the Software (including providing commercial hosting services) is also prohibited." This means that everyone using IMail, SmarterMail, or whatever app that runs on a Windows platform and is accessed over the Internet must switch to SPLA and pay a per-processor monthly license if you provide services to anyone that is not a part of your immediate company. Shrink-wrapped agreements like this aren't by default legally enforceable, especially when a product is marketed one way and the license says differently. The idea of prohibiting use simply by way of the type of entity and not the functionality appears to be unfair price competition, and based on what 99% of the market does with their software, it may not meet the legal definition of "unconscionable", making that part of the contract void. The retail software is not labeled "for hosting providers" and "for single entities", in fact they only offer one box, and clearly market the software in that box for hosting Web sites, and they widely make no distinction as to hosting or single entity use (except for the SPLA site). Limiting fair use outside of industry norms would have a hard time surviving in court under a shrink-wrapped license. Microsoft would also have a difficult time proving harm by using retail Windows Server software by hosting providers. To go another step further, Microsoft requires you to be a MCP before you can join the Microsoft Certified Partner program, or at least one part of their site says so, and that requires testing and $1,500/year, but in another part they say that you can be a Microsoft Registered Member and Microsoft Partner Program Member and qualify. This should be considered an "adhesion contract" since previously a single copy without a doubt required an expensive yearly membership and training, and submitting to even more terms and conditions like agreeing to be audited at the drop of a hat. Clearly they haven't worked it all out for themselves. In the following article linked to from their own SPLA site, they admit to at least past issues: http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/9/b/b9b1f066-51c3-4983-9c53-e65ebe104abe/08-05-02_SummitVision_Microsoft.pdf "In other licensing-program changes, Microsoft has simplified its contract language, which the vendor thinks will improve compliance with its terms. Even Microsoft admits that the first version of its license was so confusing that SPs often didn’t know if they were in compliance or not." Again, it's a crock if they want to try forcing this upon SP's. Essentially they are saying that anonymous connections to IIS need a special license now, and occasionally in the past when they could figure out what their own licensing says or means, but only when you are providing services to third-parties. Of course that also means that they sell Windows Server Web Edition, but you can't use that for hosting Internet Web sites for anyone except yourself unless you get it under SPLA. I think not. Or how about any E-mail, FTP, DNS, Web server, etc. that runs on top of Windows? They might want to claim that this is the only legitimate way on the SPLA site, but the reality clearly is that hosting on the Internet does not require SPLA, even if you sell services, otherwise th
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
Um requesting read receipts of a list is un-professional. If you notice in the subject line the OT: you can then if you desire to create a rule in your Outlook based on that. John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Edmonds Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:32 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License Importance: High um I thought this was a junk mail list aimed at discussing Declude? I did not know it was to rant about Microsoft stuff? Kindest Regards Craig Edmonds 123 Marbella Internet W: www.123marbella.com E : [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 9:05 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License Shayne (and Kevin), Rant = on I see now that under the SPLA program, they seem to indicate in a very round-about way that you have to use SPLA, in fact, you have to purchase a separate license per processor for anonymous access to IIS over the Internet. What a crock of s#*t that is. This is the third such program that I recall seeing Microsoft push on the down-low trying to claim some sort of special fees for using IIS on the Internet. It is clear as day that they don't market their product in a manner consistent with the SPLA program. They updated their EULA however to include the following; "Renting, leasing, or lending the Software (including providing commercial hosting services) is also prohibited." This means that everyone using IMail, SmarterMail, or whatever app that runs on a Windows platform and is accessed over the Internet must switch to SPLA and pay a per-processor monthly license if you provide services to anyone that is not a part of your immediate company. Shrink-wrapped agreements like this aren't by default legally enforceable, especially when a product is marketed one way and the license says differently. The idea of prohibiting use simply by way of the type of entity and not the functionality appears to be unfair price competition, and based on what 99% of the market does with their software, it may not meet the legal definition of "unconscionable", making that part of the contract void. The retail software is not labeled "for hosting providers" and "for single entities", in fact they only offer one box, and clearly market the software in that box for hosting Web sites, and they widely make no distinction as to hosting or single entity use (except for the SPLA site). Limiting fair use outside of industry norms would have a hard time surviving in court under a shrink-wrapped license. Microsoft would also have a difficult time proving harm by using retail Windows Server software by hosting providers. To go another step further, Microsoft requires you to be a MCP before you can join the Microsoft Certified Partner program, or at least one part of their site says so, and that requires testing and $1,500/year, but in another part they say that you can be a Microsoft Registered Member and Microsoft Partner Program Member and qualify. This should be considered an "adhesion contract" since previously a single copy without a doubt required an expensive yearly membership and training, and submitting to even more terms and conditions like agreeing to be audited at the drop of a hat. Clearly they haven't worked it all out for themselves. In the following article linked to from their own SPLA site, they admit to at least past issues: http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/9/b/b9b1f066-51c3-4983-9c53-e65ebe104abe/08-05-02_SummitVision_Microsoft.pdf "In other licensing-program changes, Microsoft has simplified its contract language, which the vendor thinks will improve compliance with its terms. Even Microsoft admits that the first version of its license was so confusing that SPs often didn’t know if they were in compliance or not." Again, it's a crock if they want to try forcing this upon SP's. Essentially they are saying that anonymous connections to IIS need a special license now, and occasionally in the past when they could figure out what their own licensing says or means, but only when you are providing services to third-parties. Of course that also means that they sell Windows Server Web Edition, but you can't use that for hosting Internet Web sites for anyone except yourself unless you get it under SPLA. I think not. Or how about any E-mail, FTP, DNS, Web server, etc. that runs on top of Windows? They might want to claim that this is the only legitimate way on the SPLA site, but the reality clearly is that hosting on the Internet does not require SPLA, even if you sell services, otherwise thousands of companies products and millions of their customers would be running on top of an
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
That is where the question comes in. I am not hosting a client or providing a client a service on a server. I have listened in on a conversation between a big client of mine and a lawyer and the lawyer’s thought is that I am providing a package product, in one case a web and e-mail hosting service. However that package includes DNS services, logs and other items depending on service level. That package is facilitated by different software provided by different servers located on various servers. As such, it is that lawyer’s thought that there is no requirement for a service provider licensing. In his opinion, where the service provider licensing would come into affect, no matter what vendor, is when a server or software or what ever is purchased and/or dedicated and/or designated to a client. This conversation came up when this client of mine was having their website rebuilt which would require a MS SQL server. The question posed was if a client requires say SQL server, and I go out and purchase and install it and then charge them a premium for it, who owns it, me or the client. The outcome was that if SPLA was not in existence, then if I was charging that client a premium for it and never used SQL for anything else, then the client owned it. However, if I bought it and I used it, and then offered the client to use it as part of his website, and he had no control over it and could not connect to it, then I owned it. He said the same with SPLA. If I used SQL and then allowed his website to use it but he could not connect to it to run sp or queries and I advertised a hosting service that included SQL to all at whatever service level, then a SPLA is not used. John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:34 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License The popular understanding is exactly the opposite in fact, but even Microsoft's own reps don't always tell it the same way. The fact is that anyone hosting "clients" is violating the standard EULA on Windows since they made that change, and SPLA is required. Whether or not that is enforceable is an open question. Matt John T (Lists) wrote: Matt, my understanding is that is the server is hosting multiple web sites for multiple clients, and therefore is not dedicated to any one client, the SPLA does not apply. If a server is dedicated for one client, whether that server be for web sites, SQL, ACT, Quickbooks, whatever, then that server must be licensed via SPLA. John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:05 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License Shayne (and Kevin), Rant = on I see now that under the SPLA program, they seem to indicate in a very round-about way that you have to use SPLA, in fact, you have to purchase a separate license per processor for anonymous access to IIS over the Internet. What a crock of s#*t that is. This is the third such program that I recall seeing Microsoft push on the down-low trying to claim some sort of special fees for using IIS on the Internet. It is clear as day that they don't market their product in a manner consistent with the SPLA program. They updated their EULA however to include the following; "Renting, leasing, or lending the Software (including providing commercial hosting services) is also prohibited." This means that everyone using IMail, SmarterMail, or whatever app that runs on a Windows platform and is accessed over the Internet must switch to SPLA and pay a per-processor monthly license if you provide services to anyone that is not a part of your immediate company. Shrink-wrapped agreements like this aren't by default legally enforceable, especially when a product is marketed one way and the license says differently. The idea of prohibiting use simply by way of the type of entity and not the functionality appears to be unfair price competition, and based on what 99% of the market does with their software, it may not meet the legal definition of "unconscionable", making that part of the contract void. The retail software is not labeled "for hosting providers" and "for single entities", in fact they only offer one box, and clearly market the software in that box for hosting Web sites, and they widely make no distinction as to hosting or single entity use (except for the SPLA site). Limiting fair use outside of industry norms would have a hard time surviving in court under a shrink-wrapped license. Microsoft would also have a difficult time proving harm by using retail Windows Server software by hosting providers. To go another step further, Microsoft requires yo
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
The popular understanding is exactly the opposite in fact, but even Microsoft's own reps don't always tell it the same way. The fact is that anyone hosting "clients" is violating the standard EULA on Windows since they made that change, and SPLA is required. Whether or not that is enforceable is an open question. Matt John T (Lists) wrote: Matt, my understanding is that is the server is hosting multiple web sites for multiple clients, and therefore is not dedicated to any one client, the SPLA does not apply. If a server is dedicated for one client, whether that server be for web sites, SQL, ACT, Quickbooks, whatever, then that server must be licensed via SPLA. John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:05 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License Shayne (and Kevin), Rant = on I see now that under the SPLA program, they seem to indicate in a very round-about way that you have to use SPLA, in fact, you have to purchase a separate license per processor for anonymous access to IIS over the Internet. What a crock of s#*t that is. This is the third such program that I recall seeing Microsoft push on the down-low trying to claim some sort of special fees for using IIS on the Internet. It is clear as day that they don't market their product in a manner consistent with the SPLA program. They updated their EULA however to include the following; "Renting, leasing, or lending the Software (including providing commercial hosting services) is also prohibited." This means that everyone using IMail, SmarterMail, or whatever app that runs on a Windows platform and is accessed over the Internet must switch to SPLA and pay a per-processor monthly license if you provide services to anyone that is not a part of your immediate company. Shrink-wrapped agreements like this aren't by default legally enforceable, especially when a product is marketed one way and the license says differently. The idea of prohibiting use simply by way of the type of entity and not the functionality appears to be unfair price competition, and based on what 99% of the market does with their software, it may not meet the legal definition of "unconscionable", making that part of the contract void. The retail software is not labeled "for hosting providers" and "for single entities", in fact they only offer one box, and clearly market the software in that box for hosting Web sites, and they widely make no distinction as to hosting or single entity use (except for the SPLA site). Limiting fair use outside of industry norms would have a hard time surviving in court under a shrink-wrapped license. Microsoft would also have a difficult time proving harm by using retail Windows Server software by hosting providers. To go another step further, Microsoft requires you to be a MCP before you can join the Microsoft Certified Partner program, or at least one part of their site says so, and that requires testing and $1,500/year, but in another part they say that you can be a Microsoft Registered Member and Microsoft Partner Program Member and qualify. This should be considered an "adhesion contract" since previously a single copy without a doubt required an expensive yearly membership and training, and submitting to even more terms and conditions like agreeing to be audited at the drop of a hat. Clearly they haven't worked it all out for themselves. In the following article linked to from their own SPLA site, they admit to at least past issues: http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/9/b/b9b1f066-51c3-4983-9c53-e65ebe104abe/08-05-02_SummitVision_Microsoft.pdf "In other licensing-program changes, Microsoft has simplified its contract language, which the vendor thinks will improve compliance with its terms. Even Microsoft admits that the first version of its license was so confusing that SPs often didn’t know if they were in compliance or not." Again, it's a crock if they want to try forcing this upon SP's. Essentially they are saying that anonymous connections to IIS need a special license now, and occasionally in the past when they could figure out what their own licensing says or means, but only when you are providing services to third-parties. Of course that also means that they sell Windows Server Web Edition, but you can't use that for hosting Internet Web sites for anyone except yourself unless you get it under SPLA. I think not. Or how about any E-mail, FTP, DNS, Web server, etc. that runs on top of Windows? They might want to claim that this is the only legitimate way on the SPLA site, but the reality clearly is that hosting on the Internet does not require SPLA, even if you sell services, otherwise thousands of companies products and millions of their customers would be r
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
um I thought this was a junk mail list aimed at discussing Declude? I did not know it was to rant about Microsoft stuff? Kindest RegardsCraig Edmonds123 Marbella InternetW: www.123marbella.comE : [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MattSent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 9:05 PMTo: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License Shayne (and Kevin),Rant = onI see now that under the SPLA program, they seem to indicate in a very round-about way that you have to use SPLA, in fact, you have to purchase a separate license per processor for anonymous access to IIS over the Internet. What a crock of s#*t that is. This is the third such program that I recall seeing Microsoft push on the down-low trying to claim some sort of special fees for using IIS on the Internet. It is clear as day that they don't market their product in a manner consistent with the SPLA program. They updated their EULA however to include the following; "Renting, leasing, or lending the Software (including providing commercial hosting services) is also prohibited." This means that everyone using IMail, SmarterMail, or whatever app that runs on a Windows platform and is accessed over the Internet must switch to SPLA and pay a per-processor monthly license if you provide services to anyone that is not a part of your immediate company.Shrink-wrapped agreements like this aren't by default legally enforceable, especially when a product is marketed one way and the license says differently. The idea of prohibiting use simply by way of the type of entity and not the functionality appears to be unfair price competition, and based on what 99% of the market does with their software, it may not meet the legal definition of "unconscionable", making that part of the contract void. The retail software is not labeled "for hosting providers" and "for single entities", in fact they only offer one box, and clearly market the software in that box for hosting Web sites, and they widely make no distinction as to hosting or single entity use (except for the SPLA site). Limiting fair use outside of industry norms would have a hard time surviving in court under a shrink-wrapped license. Microsoft would also have a difficult time proving harm by using retail Windows Server software by hosting providers.To go another step further, Microsoft requires you to be a MCP before you can join the Microsoft Certified Partner program, or at least one part of their site says so, and that requires testing and $1,500/year, but in another part they say that you can be a Microsoft Registered Member and Microsoft Partner Program Member and qualify. This should be considered an "adhesion contract" since previously a single copy without a doubt required an expensive yearly membership and training, and submitting to even more terms and conditions like agreeing to be audited at the drop of a hat. Clearly they haven't worked it all out for themselves. In the following article linked to from their own SPLA site, they admit to at least past issues: http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/9/b/b9b1f066-51c3-4983-9c53-e65ebe104abe/08-05-02_SummitVision_Microsoft.pdf"In other licensing-program changes, Microsoft has simplified its contract language, which the vendor thinks will improve compliance with its terms. Even Microsoft admits that the first version of its license was so confusing that SPs often didn’t know if they were in compliance or not."Again, it's a crock if they want to try forcing this upon SP's. Essentially they are saying that anonymous connections to IIS need a special license now, and occasionally in the past when they could figure out what their own licensing says or means, but only when you are providing services to third-parties. Of course that also means that they sell Windows Server Web Edition, but you can't use that for hosting Internet Web sites for anyone except yourself unless you get it under SPLA. I think not. Or how about any E-mail, FTP, DNS, Web server, etc. that runs on top of Windows? They might want to claim that this is the only legitimate way on the SPLA site, but the reality clearly is that hosting on the Internet does not require SPLA, even if you sell services, otherwise thousands of companies products and millions of their customers would be running on top of an illegitimately licensed OS. It suggests that products such as Commerce Server can't be bought at retail and used on the Internet, and it suggests that the SQL Server per-processor licensing is only for intranet use even though they clearly state that the license is most appropriate for Internet use and make no differentiation among the type of entity, nor do they attempt to make you aware of SPLA. Not enforcing the terms, nor providing for even basic awareness of the 'proper
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
Matt, my understanding is that is the server is hosting multiple web sites for multiple clients, and therefore is not dedicated to any one client, the SPLA does not apply. If a server is dedicated for one client, whether that server be for web sites, SQL, ACT, Quickbooks, whatever, then that server must be licensed via SPLA. John T eServices For You "Seek, and ye shall find!" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:05 PM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License Shayne (and Kevin), Rant = on I see now that under the SPLA program, they seem to indicate in a very round-about way that you have to use SPLA, in fact, you have to purchase a separate license per processor for anonymous access to IIS over the Internet. What a crock of s#*t that is. This is the third such program that I recall seeing Microsoft push on the down-low trying to claim some sort of special fees for using IIS on the Internet. It is clear as day that they don't market their product in a manner consistent with the SPLA program. They updated their EULA however to include the following; "Renting, leasing, or lending the Software (including providing commercial hosting services) is also prohibited." This means that everyone using IMail, SmarterMail, or whatever app that runs on a Windows platform and is accessed over the Internet must switch to SPLA and pay a per-processor monthly license if you provide services to anyone that is not a part of your immediate company. Shrink-wrapped agreements like this aren't by default legally enforceable, especially when a product is marketed one way and the license says differently. The idea of prohibiting use simply by way of the type of entity and not the functionality appears to be unfair price competition, and based on what 99% of the market does with their software, it may not meet the legal definition of "unconscionable", making that part of the contract void. The retail software is not labeled "for hosting providers" and "for single entities", in fact they only offer one box, and clearly market the software in that box for hosting Web sites, and they widely make no distinction as to hosting or single entity use (except for the SPLA site). Limiting fair use outside of industry norms would have a hard time surviving in court under a shrink-wrapped license. Microsoft would also have a difficult time proving harm by using retail Windows Server software by hosting providers. To go another step further, Microsoft requires you to be a MCP before you can join the Microsoft Certified Partner program, or at least one part of their site says so, and that requires testing and $1,500/year, but in another part they say that you can be a Microsoft Registered Member and Microsoft Partner Program Member and qualify. This should be considered an "adhesion contract" since previously a single copy without a doubt required an expensive yearly membership and training, and submitting to even more terms and conditions like agreeing to be audited at the drop of a hat. Clearly they haven't worked it all out for themselves. In the following article linked to from their own SPLA site, they admit to at least past issues: http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/9/b/b9b1f066-51c3-4983-9c53-e65ebe104abe/08-05-02_SummitVision_Microsoft.pdf "In other licensing-program changes, Microsoft has simplified its contract language, which the vendor thinks will improve compliance with its terms. Even Microsoft admits that the first version of its license was so confusing that SPs often didn’t know if they were in compliance or not." Again, it's a crock if they want to try forcing this upon SP's. Essentially they are saying that anonymous connections to IIS need a special license now, and occasionally in the past when they could figure out what their own licensing says or means, but only when you are providing services to third-parties. Of course that also means that they sell Windows Server Web Edition, but you can't use that for hosting Internet Web sites for anyone except yourself unless you get it under SPLA. I think not. Or how about any E-mail, FTP, DNS, Web server, etc. that runs on top of Windows? They might want to claim that this is the only legitimate way on the SPLA site, but the reality clearly is that hosting on the Internet does not require SPLA, even if you sell services, otherwise thousands of companies products and millions of their customers would be running on top of an illegitimately licensed OS. It suggests that products such as Commerce Server can't be bought at retail and used on the Internet, and it suggests that the SQL Server per-processor licensing is only for intranet use even though they clearly state that the license is most appropriate for Internet use and make no differentiation among the type of entity, nor do they at
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Why Are these Messages Not being scanned?
David, I would verify that the Declude logs show these messages. If it is the issue with formatting, then Declude should still be logging them. My guess is that this didn't fail enough tests to trigger HOLD, DELETE or ROUTETO on your system, and due to the headers probably appearing in the body of the message, it doesn't look like it is scanned. This of course came up last week again. It seems like the bug is long-standing, but the spammers are failing it more often. Matt David Dodell wrote: John, good point, didn't "catch" that ... yep, Declude is missing them all ... -Original Message- From: "John Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent 3/11/2006 10:25:47 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Why Are these Messages Not being scanned? This may not be the problem, but I don't remember seeing TO, FROM etc lines appearing before the "Received: from" line, except in msgs sent internal to Imail. Every header I've seen started with Received:. (I guess it can happen. Does here.) Could this be a case of broken client/headers messing up Declude?? John C -- Original Message -- From: David Dodell Reply-To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:05:11 -0700 >For several days I've been getting spam from several ip's basically >all looking the same in the headers and body, except for the received >IP address. > >What I can't figure out, why is it not being scanned by Declude. I >normally see in all of my message headers, the declude scan >information ... but these emails are not being caught ... > >Any ideas? > >David > >- > > > > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: We cure any desease! > Date: March 11, 2006 2:53:00 AM MST > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: from friend [24.225.247.213] by stat.com with ESMTP >(SMTPD-9.02) id A0681218; Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:52:56 -0700 > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; >boundary="ms080207070102060004090406" > X-Priority: 3 > X-Msmail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 > X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 >--- >This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To >unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and >type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found >at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Microsoft Open License
Shayne (and Kevin), Rant = on I see now that under the SPLA program, they seem to indicate in a very round-about way that you have to use SPLA, in fact, you have to purchase a separate license per processor for anonymous access to IIS over the Internet. What a crock of s#*t that is. This is the third such program that I recall seeing Microsoft push on the down-low trying to claim some sort of special fees for using IIS on the Internet. It is clear as day that they don't market their product in a manner consistent with the SPLA program. They updated their EULA however to include the following; "Renting, leasing, or lending the Software (including providing commercial hosting services) is also prohibited." This means that everyone using IMail, SmarterMail, or whatever app that runs on a Windows platform and is accessed over the Internet must switch to SPLA and pay a per-processor monthly license if you provide services to anyone that is not a part of your immediate company. Shrink-wrapped agreements like this aren't by default legally enforceable, especially when a product is marketed one way and the license says differently. The idea of prohibiting use simply by way of the type of entity and not the functionality appears to be unfair price competition, and based on what 99% of the market does with their software, it may not meet the legal definition of "unconscionable", making that part of the contract void. The retail software is not labeled "for hosting providers" and "for single entities", in fact they only offer one box, and clearly market the software in that box for hosting Web sites, and they widely make no distinction as to hosting or single entity use (except for the SPLA site). Limiting fair use outside of industry norms would have a hard time surviving in court under a shrink-wrapped license. Microsoft would also have a difficult time proving harm by using retail Windows Server software by hosting providers. To go another step further, Microsoft requires you to be a MCP before you can join the Microsoft Certified Partner program, or at least one part of their site says so, and that requires testing and $1,500/year, but in another part they say that you can be a Microsoft Registered Member and Microsoft Partner Program Member and qualify. This should be considered an "adhesion contract" since previously a single copy without a doubt required an expensive yearly membership and training, and submitting to even more terms and conditions like agreeing to be audited at the drop of a hat. Clearly they haven't worked it all out for themselves. In the following article linked to from their own SPLA site, they admit to at least past issues: http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/9/b/b9b1f066-51c3-4983-9c53-e65ebe104abe/08-05-02_SummitVision_Microsoft.pdf "In other licensing-program changes, Microsoft has simplified its contract language, which the vendor thinks will improve compliance with its terms. Even Microsoft admits that the first version of its license was so confusing that SPs often didn’t know if they were in compliance or not." Again, it's a crock if they want to try forcing this upon SP's. Essentially they are saying that anonymous connections to IIS need a special license now, and occasionally in the past when they could figure out what their own licensing says or means, but only when you are providing services to third-parties. Of course that also means that they sell Windows Server Web Edition, but you can't use that for hosting Internet Web sites for anyone except yourself unless you get it under SPLA. I think not. Or how about any E-mail, FTP, DNS, Web server, etc. that runs on top of Windows? They might want to claim that this is the only legitimate way on the SPLA site, but the reality clearly is that hosting on the Internet does not require SPLA, even if you sell services, otherwise thousands of companies products and millions of their customers would be running on top of an illegitimately licensed OS. It suggests that products such as Commerce Server can't be bought at retail and used on the Internet, and it suggests that the SQL Server per-processor licensing is only for intranet use even though they clearly state that the license is most appropriate for Internet use and make no differentiation among the type of entity, nor do they attempt to make you aware of SPLA. Not enforcing the terms, nor providing for even basic awareness of the 'proper' program could also make it unenforceable. I think that I'm done... Comments on forums are all over the place on this. One claimed for instance that a MS rep from the SPLA program told him that SPLA was only required if you leased servers to third-parties, but not for providing hosting services. I'm not even sure that they can force that as a condition. Clearly SPLA is optional, at least from a legally enforceable standpoint. I would not put it past Microsoft to try claiming something that they knew couldn't be
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Why Are these Messages Not being scanned?
John, good point, didn't "catch" that ... yep, Declude is missing them all ... -Original Message-From: "John Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent 3/11/2006 10:25:47 AMTo: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Why Are these Messages Not being scanned?This may not be the problem, but I don't remember seeing TO, FROM etc lines appearing before the "Received: from" line, except in msgs sent internal to Imail. Every header I've seen started with Received:. (I guess it can happen. Does here.) Could this be a case of broken client/headers messing up Declude??John C-- Original Message --From: David Dodell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.comDate: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:05:11 -0700>For several days I've been getting spam from several ip's basically >all looking the same in the headers and body, except for the received >IP address.>>What I can't figure out, why is it not being scanned by Declude. I >normally see in all of my message headers, the declude scan >information ... but these emails are not being caught ...>>Any ideas?>>David>>->>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: We cure any desease!> Date: March 11, 2006 2:53:00 AM MST> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from friend [24.225.247.213] by stat.com with ESMTP >(SMTPD-9.02) id A0681218; Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:52:56 -0700> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Mime-Version: 1.0> Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; >boundary="ms080207070102060004090406"> X-Priority: 3> X-Msmail-Priority: Normal> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180>--->This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To>unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and>type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found>at http://www.mail-archive.com.>---This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. Tounsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], andtype "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be foundat http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Why Are these Messages Not being scanned?
This may not be the problem, but I don't remember seeing TO, FROM etc lines appearing before the "Received: from" line, except in msgs sent internal to Imail. Every header I've seen started with Received:. (I guess it can happen. Does here.) Could this be a case of broken client/headers messing up Declude?? John C -- Original Message -- From: David Dodell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:05:11 -0700 >For several days I've been getting spam from several ip's basically >all looking the same in the headers and body, except for the received >IP address. > >What I can't figure out, why is it not being scanned by Declude. I >normally see in all of my message headers, the declude scan >information ... but these emails are not being caught ... > >Any ideas? > >David > >- > > > > > > >From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject:We cure any desease! > Date: March 11, 2006 2:53:00 AM MST > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: from friend [24.225.247.213] by stat.com with ESMTP >(SMTPD-9.02) id A0681218; Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:52:56 -0700 > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; >boundary="ms080207070102060004090406" > X-Priority: 3 > X-Msmail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 > X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 >--- >This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To >unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and >type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found >at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
[Declude.JunkMail] Why Are these Messages Not being scanned?
For several days I've been getting spam from several ip's basically all looking the same in the headers and body, except for the received IP address. What I can't figure out, why is it not being scanned by Declude. I normally see in all of my message headers, the declude scan information ... but these emails are not being caught ... Any ideas? David - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:We cure any desease! Date: March 11, 2006 2:53:00 AM MST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from friend [24.225.247.213] by stat.com with ESMTP (SMTPD-9.02) id A0681218; Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:52:56 -0700 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="ms080207070102060004090406" X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
