Windows Licensing Issues?
by Mark O · in Technical Issues · 11/04/2005 (10:33 pm) · 15 replies
I can't seem to find any specific info anywhere on the net about this. My question is: If I want to use some flavor of Windows as a game server for an MMO or whatever, do I need some sort of client licensing?
About the author
#2
Don't do it!
Your asking for headaches, hassles and hacks as soon as you stick windows onto any computer.
And to add insult to injury most ISPs charge MORE for a windows box than they do for a linux box.
11/05/2005 (12:10 am)
Here's a quick tip about windows as a game server.Don't do it!
Your asking for headaches, hassles and hacks as soon as you stick windows onto any computer.
And to add insult to injury most ISPs charge MORE for a windows box than they do for a linux box.
#3
11/05/2005 (1:38 am)
No because if you have an MMO the client will talk to middleware or the database not the OS.
#4
@Dreamer: I don't plan on renting anything, the boxes are all owned by me and I'll have a line dropped in here. I've had windows hosting websites for years with no hacks, hassles or headaches. Don't imagine this will be any different and since the game won't appeal to kiddies, the less so.
11/05/2005 (5:10 am)
Ok, thanks. @Dreamer: I don't plan on renting anything, the boxes are all owned by me and I'll have a line dropped in here. I've had windows hosting websites for years with no hacks, hassles or headaches. Don't imagine this will be any different and since the game won't appeal to kiddies, the less so.
#5
11/05/2005 (10:40 am)
Just a note. If you're using SQL Server for the database, you'll need a client license for each person using the database, even if you consolidate down to a single connection through some middle ware.
#6
11/05/2005 (2:12 pm)
@Theo: Nope, I'll be using mysql, firebird or something similar because of the client license thing.
#7
well, Theo kind of does in his reply about sql server, but even that isnt really true.
------------------
@Mark: to answer your question bluntly, NO a per-client license is not required ... IF:
- You are using Windows with a per-processor license (generally that's what you would purchase)
- You are using sql server with a per-processor license (generally that's what you would purchase)
I dont know why these people think you need a per-client license for windows.. if you are using something like Terminal server then sure, they are correct, but for normal things like FTP, WWW, etc you dont need a per-client license.... at least not from microsoft. even sql server generally sells per-processor licenses.
As for windows being bad for a server.. it depends.. if you are a good linux admin, then use linux. if you are a good windows admin, use windows. if you are not good at either, hire someone who is.
11/05/2005 (4:29 pm)
Man, sorry to say this, but none of these people have it right.well, Theo kind of does in his reply about sql server, but even that isnt really true.
------------------
@Mark: to answer your question bluntly, NO a per-client license is not required ... IF:
- You are using Windows with a per-processor license (generally that's what you would purchase)
- You are using sql server with a per-processor license (generally that's what you would purchase)
I dont know why these people think you need a per-client license for windows.. if you are using something like Terminal server then sure, they are correct, but for normal things like FTP, WWW, etc you dont need a per-client license.... at least not from microsoft. even sql server generally sells per-processor licenses.
As for windows being bad for a server.. it depends.. if you are a good linux admin, then use linux. if you are a good windows admin, use windows. if you are not good at either, hire someone who is.
#8
11/05/2005 (4:53 pm)
Windows Server 2003 is an awesome OS, probrally the best server OS out there, unless you are very well experianced with Unix.
#9
I choose Windows because I find it easier to deal with, nothing more. I don't feel it is better or worse than Linux, just easier to deal with.
Now, the hard part is creating super efficient networking so a T1 or so can handle hundreds of users.
11/05/2005 (9:38 pm)
Thanks everyone. Let's not let the thread devolve down to Linux vs. Windows. All that does is make a long thread that goes nowhere. I choose Windows because I find it easier to deal with, nothing more. I don't feel it is better or worse than Linux, just easier to deal with.
Now, the hard part is creating super efficient networking so a T1 or so can handle hundreds of users.
#10
I'm talking based on the interpretation we've gotten from the corporate attorneys where I work. According to their reading of the per-processor license, it only gets you out of needing client licenses for *Windows* clients. The worst part of that is that since its virtually impossible to definitively tell what OS a client across a network is running, you end up needing client licenses for *every* client, even if they're running some version of Windows. Of course, since he said he's not running MS SQL Server, it's a moot point, but I thought I'd clarify my generalization.
As an aside, if you want to use a Windows box as a server, make sure you're using a Windows Server OS version, or you'll be violating your OS license the moment you get more than 5 clients connecting (even if they're all technically a single consolidated connection). [disclaimer: This is based on my own reading of the Windows NT 4 Workstation and Windows 2000 Professional EULAs, the connection limits may have been relaxed or tightened in XP and/or a Service Pack. IANAL]
11/07/2005 (6:45 am)
@Jason SwearingenI'm talking based on the interpretation we've gotten from the corporate attorneys where I work. According to their reading of the per-processor license, it only gets you out of needing client licenses for *Windows* clients. The worst part of that is that since its virtually impossible to definitively tell what OS a client across a network is running, you end up needing client licenses for *every* client, even if they're running some version of Windows. Of course, since he said he's not running MS SQL Server, it's a moot point, but I thought I'd clarify my generalization.
As an aside, if you want to use a Windows box as a server, make sure you're using a Windows Server OS version, or you'll be violating your OS license the moment you get more than 5 clients connecting (even if they're all technically a single consolidated connection). [disclaimer: This is based on my own reading of the Windows NT 4 Workstation and Windows 2000 Professional EULAs, the connection limits may have been relaxed or tightened in XP and/or a Service Pack. IANAL]
#11
@Theo: I think your attorneys are a bit too paranoid... is there any case law to backup their claims? I have never heard of anything like this.
11/07/2005 (11:24 am)
What theo says is true about the need to run a "server" OS version (IE: Windows 2000 Server or Windows 2003, NOT xp)@Theo: I think your attorneys are a bit too paranoid... is there any case law to backup their claims? I have never heard of anything like this.
#12
in the CAL scenerio, you usually buy licenses in groups of 5..but
We're your getting confused what actually constitutes a client.. Im by no means an expert on this but..the "client" is actually your webserver/web farm...not the end users browser/os. Unless you are providing direct access through an application, even then your application becomes the client..
in the processor license your allowed as many connections as needed.
Last time i checked cal was ~1,500 w/ 5 seats and processor was ~5k
11/07/2005 (11:55 am)
@theo.. I think the legal guys need to talk to your M$ sales rep, they can explain all this to you.. There is a CAL (client access license) and a processor license.in the CAL scenerio, you usually buy licenses in groups of 5..but
We're your getting confused what actually constitutes a client.. Im by no means an expert on this but..the "client" is actually your webserver/web farm...not the end users browser/os. Unless you are providing direct access through an application, even then your application becomes the client..
in the processor license your allowed as many connections as needed.
Last time i checked cal was ~1,500 w/ 5 seats and processor was ~5k
#13
Your lawyers should read the licensing pages at Microsoft, though.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/default.mspx
That's for 2003, but you can scale back to the licensing for your OS. The basics of it comes down to the connection type and method of access to the machine.
CAL's can be expensive, but for distributed web applications (or those which use "common" internet protocols) you should be fine. If you are physically mapping a drive to the physical server, you'll get to play with CAL's. But that is more of an internal/external issue. For most people connecting to your system, the method would be like accessing a web server or database server (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx#EEAA).
I can easily see where the confusion stems from, but as long as you create your apps correctly, you should be able to utilize the CAL's you license for internal development and utilize your external connections accordingly without purchasing a CAL for each user. While the licensing was originally set up for any connection, the web pretty much kill that scheme since no one would have stayed with Windows as a server platform if they had to pay outrageous licensing for every people who happened to browse to their site. Sometimes popularity changes things for the better.
But the best thing to do is research Microsoft's licensing information. They have an awful lot of helpful information for every version of their OS's and server products.
11/07/2005 (12:24 pm)
CAL licensing has been a big issue in the past for Windows servers, but CAL schemes were updated with the explosion of the web since the pricing fluctuation for accessing a web server on a NT 3.51 or 4 box would have broken most business models. IIS had its own licensing scheme to allow for the removal of CAL implementation for access in most web services.Your lawyers should read the licensing pages at Microsoft, though.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/default.mspx
That's for 2003, but you can scale back to the licensing for your OS. The basics of it comes down to the connection type and method of access to the machine.
CAL's can be expensive, but for distributed web applications (or those which use "common" internet protocols) you should be fine. If you are physically mapping a drive to the physical server, you'll get to play with CAL's. But that is more of an internal/external issue. For most people connecting to your system, the method would be like accessing a web server or database server (http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx#EEAA).
I can easily see where the confusion stems from, but as long as you create your apps correctly, you should be able to utilize the CAL's you license for internal development and utilize your external connections accordingly without purchasing a CAL for each user. While the licensing was originally set up for any connection, the web pretty much kill that scheme since no one would have stayed with Windows as a server platform if they had to pay outrageous licensing for every people who happened to browse to their site. Sometimes popularity changes things for the better.
But the best thing to do is research Microsoft's licensing information. They have an awful lot of helpful information for every version of their OS's and server products.
#14
Unless it's been revised in a service pack, there's actually language in the Windows 2K EULA that doesn't let you get around the 'connection limit' by consolidating the connections through some intermediate layer like a web app. I haven't heard that there's any difference between those parts of the 2000 and 2003 EULAs, but there may be.
@Jason Swearingen
I think it sounds excessive, too, but it's what I've been told by people with experience interpreting legal documents. There's remarkably little case law about any individual EULA, especially since most legal disputes over EULAs are settled with sealed terms of settlement. Personally I think many of the terms should be held as invalid simply because you've been presented with a document that purports to change the terms of the sale after the transaction has been completed, but the courts clearly don't agree with me on that count. I figure legal has been instructed to err on the side of caution, because 'IP' suits can be hellishly expensive to defend against, even when you're completely in the clear.
Besides, if someone calls for a BSA audit against the average corporation, they'll end up paying for most/all of their Windows licenses again because it's very difficult to be sure you've managed to keep the various 'proper' bits of documentation over the years. Oddly enough, the BSA has been documented as willing to 'forgive' your non-Microsoft shortcomings in exchange for getting you to agree to pay for new Microsoft licenses.
11/07/2005 (12:27 pm)
@Kevin JohnsonUnless it's been revised in a service pack, there's actually language in the Windows 2K EULA that doesn't let you get around the 'connection limit' by consolidating the connections through some intermediate layer like a web app. I haven't heard that there's any difference between those parts of the 2000 and 2003 EULAs, but there may be.
@Jason Swearingen
I think it sounds excessive, too, but it's what I've been told by people with experience interpreting legal documents. There's remarkably little case law about any individual EULA, especially since most legal disputes over EULAs are settled with sealed terms of settlement. Personally I think many of the terms should be held as invalid simply because you've been presented with a document that purports to change the terms of the sale after the transaction has been completed, but the courts clearly don't agree with me on that count. I figure legal has been instructed to err on the side of caution, because 'IP' suits can be hellishly expensive to defend against, even when you're completely in the clear.
Besides, if someone calls for a BSA audit against the average corporation, they'll end up paying for most/all of their Windows licenses again because it's very difficult to be sure you've managed to keep the various 'proper' bits of documentation over the years. Oddly enough, the BSA has been documented as willing to 'forgive' your non-Microsoft shortcomings in exchange for getting you to agree to pay for new Microsoft licenses.
#15
It's good to know that the CAL license mess has been cleaned up at least to a degree. We stopped getting updates from legal about licensing terms when we started having our customers provide the servers, rather than shipping hardware and software to their site(s), because it became *their* problem to make sure they were complying with the various license terms, rather than ours.
11/07/2005 (12:34 pm)
@David BlakeIt's good to know that the CAL license mess has been cleaned up at least to a degree. We stopped getting updates from legal about licensing terms when we started having our customers provide the servers, rather than shipping hardware and software to their site(s), because it became *their* problem to make sure they were complying with the various license terms, rather than ours.
Employee David Montgomery-Blake
David MontgomeryBlake