Microsoft Self-Audit Letter
-
@garak0410 said:
We do not use volume licenses for Office. We buy them when we purchase a new PC or when we upgrade. Will they try to ding us if we are mot using a volume license because we have 50+ stand alone install of both 2010 and 2013?
They can't ding you if it isn't a license violation.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@garak0410 said:
We do not use volume licenses for Office. We buy them when we purchase a new PC or when we upgrade. Will they try to ding us if we are mot using a volume license because we have 50+ stand alone install of both 2010 and 2013?
They can't ding you if it isn't a license violation.
Good...because I buy OEM Windows Licenses when I build PC's and the stand alone Office copies...
-
@garak0410 said:
Good...because I buy OEM Windows Licenses when I build PC's and the stand alone Office copies...
Well you always have to do OEM Windows licenses. There is no alternative for that other than full retail which wouldn't make much sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@garak0410 said:
Good...because I buy OEM Windows Licenses when I build PC's and the stand alone Office copies...
Well you always have to do OEM Windows licenses. There is no alternative for that other than full retail which wouldn't make much sense.
Thanks for all the tips...was kind of blindsided by this and concerned...not so much out of legal issues but finding out of compliance areas and being asked to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.
Are there risks of fines too?
-
My understanding is that if you find you are out of compliance, you will just need to purchase the required licences. I don't think it is about fining or punishing you. Microsoft licencing can be complicated and it is understandable that companies may find they're not quite right. I doubt Microsoft would consider a fine suitable in this situation.
They never asked me for much proof. So if they pointed out I wasn't compliant I could just purchase the licence and then tell them I am now compliant. The first ten or so attempts I made at filling in the spreadsheet they sent me was bounced back to me indicating that I was out of compliance. This was because I hadn't filled in the form correclty, not because I wasn't actually compliant, but my point is there were plenty of opportunities for me to purchase licences if I needed to. They didn't just fail me and send me a bill, they worked with me over several months.
-
As @garak0410 says you have plenty of time to become compliant if you happen to not be.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
My understanding is that if you find you are out of compliance, you will just need to purchase the required licenses. I don't think it is about fining or punishing you. Microsoft licensing can be complicated and it is understandable that companies may find they're not quite right. I doubt Microsoft would consider a fine suitable in this situation.
They never asked me for much proof. So if they pointed out I wasn't compliant I could just purchase the license and then tell them I am now compliant. The first ten or so attempts I made at filling in the spreadsheet they sent me was bounced back to me indicating that I was out of compliance. This was because I hadn't filled in the form correctly, not because I wasn't actually compliant, but my point is there were plenty of opportunities for me to purchase licenses if I needed to. They didn't just fail me and send me a bill, they worked with me over several months.
Thanks for that info...I was just reviewing the certification portion of the form and you can either certify that you are compliant or certify that you ordered sufficient licenses. So, I am thinking we will end up doing the latter on at least one thing.
I am also seeing that they are not asking for a spreadsheet. Just that I audited and I am compliant or will order licenses. So this may not be that big of a deal.
-
Not likely that big of deal. And a good exercise to go through.
-
In researching our licenses, I did find folders and folders of certificates for DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95...for sure not in production...assuming that is OK to ditch...
-
@garak0410 said:
In researching our licenses, I did find folders and folders of certificates for DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95...for sure not in production...assuming that is OK to ditch...
Unless you have a stack of floppies and some old-ass hardware laying around that you feel like playing with for some unknown, odd reason...
-
Wow, well at least this audit will help you get things cleaned up!
-
@Minion-Queen said:
Wow, well at least this audit will help you get things cleaned up!
For real! And I am actually finding some useful stuff...hoping I do come across this needed info...
-
I had this at one client back in March.
We had already performed our own internal audit and new that we needed some office licensing (10 licenses off 2013 Standard). We were going to purchase them over 3 months to spread out the impact on the numbers to cross two fiscal quarters. That ended up not happening.
I found nothing else wrong during the audit other than some misapplied keys. Was quite pleased to not have any surprises.
-
@JaredBusch said:
I had this at one client back in March.
We had already performed our own internal audit and new that we needed some office licensing (10 licenses off 2013 Standard). We were going to purchase them over 3 months to spread out the impact on the numbers to cross two fiscal quarters. That ended up not happening.
I found nothing else wrong during the audit other than some misapplied keys. Was quite pleased to not have any surprises.
Our hole seems to be SQL...and it may be a large one too. If any user who uses even the simplest of spreadsheets that hits SQL to get data, they are considered a user, correct?
-
@garak0410 said:
Our hole seems to be SQL...and it may be a large one too. If any user who uses even the simplest of spreadsheets that hits SQL to get data, they are considered a user, correct?
Oh yeah. Full user, no question.
-
@garak0410 said:
Our hole seems to be SQL...and it may be a large one too. If any user who uses even the simplest of spreadsheets that hits SQL to get data, they are considered a user, correct?
@scottalanmiller said:
Oh yeah. Full user, no question.
Yeah that is a reason to go with the per core licensing instead of per user. Office people with spreadsheets are a really light, intermittent load generally.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@garak0410 said:
Our hole seems to be SQL...and it may be a large one too. If any user who uses even the simplest of spreadsheets that hits SQL to get data, they are considered a user, correct?
@scottalanmiller said:
Oh yeah. Full user, no question.
Yeah that is a reason to go with the per core licensing instead of per user. Office people with spreadsheets are a really light, intermittent load generally.
I got a quote for the Core SQL: $6,571.32
Vs Per User (50 Users): $8,611.20
And the Core is for an unlimited amount of users, right?
-
@garak0410 said:
I got a quote for the Core SQL: $6,571.32
Vs Per User (50 Users): $8,611.20
And the Core is for an unlimited amount of users, right?yes it is unlimited connections. Each license is for 2 cores though. So unless your SQL server is a virtual machine with only 2 cores, you will need to buy enough copies to match the number of cores in the server.
Base don the $6k number that sounds like two licenses so 4 cores?
-
@JaredBusch said:
@garak0410 said:
I got a quote for the Core SQL: $6,571.32
Vs Per User (50 Users): $8,611.20
And the Core is for an unlimited amount of users, right?yes it is unlimited connections. Each license is for 2 cores though. So unless your SQL server is a virtual machine with only 2 cores, you will need to buy enough copies to match the number of cores in the server.
Base don the $6k number that sounds like two licenses so 4 cores?
Yes...2 licenses...still much cheaper than the 50 users...
-
4 cores is the minimum purchase, right?
