CloudatCost OpenDNS Issue
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You have a DC license, but even with Dreamspark you need to honor the license requirements, which is one license per CPU. How many CPUs are you running on in the cluster? You have no way to know. Dreamspark you get one copy only. Presumably they give you two CPUs with that. So.... let's say you have two. How short are you from having enough for the cluster?
We don't know, we only know it's a lot more than two. So, you don't have a valid license. Plain and simple. That it is Dreamspark, student use, activated or whatever are not in any way relevant here.
I not in a business environment. Even if MS sued me, they'd get nothing. I don't care if I'm violating a license agreement in this case. If this was a business, it'd be a totally difference scenario and I'd approach and handle it totally differently.
Business or not licensing terms are terms. It's not legal to break them. And for that matter they can garnish your wages.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Anyways, if Microsoft wants to come yell at me for it, I'll let them. Until then, it's staying as is.
Just so you understand, as a licensing issue goes, this is potentially millions of dollars of pirating, not just a copy of Windows. Yeah, they'd have to come after you. But all it requires is for them to audit CloudatCost, not you, and you are swept up in an audit of lots of other people. And you have no means of paying the "true up" fee. Nor do your parents. Nor does everyone you know combined.
And let's be realistic. The chances they'd pursue it and not just shut down the license is pretty low.
Just because they aren't actively enforcing it to you doesn't make it legal.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You have a DC license, but even with Dreamspark you need to honor the license requirements, which is one license per CPU. How many CPUs are you running on in the cluster? You have no way to know. Dreamspark you get one copy only. Presumably they give you two CPUs with that. So.... let's say you have two. How short are you from having enough for the cluster?
We don't know, we only know it's a lot more than two. So, you don't have a valid license. Plain and simple. That it is Dreamspark, student use, activated or whatever are not in any way relevant here.
I not in a business environment. Even if MS sued me, they'd get nothing. I don't care if I'm violating a license agreement in this case. If this was a business, it'd be a totally difference scenario and I'd approach and handle it totally differently.
Business or not licensing terms are terms. It's not legal to break them. And for that matter they can garnish your wages.
Yeah, they'd be awfully disappointed.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@coliver said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
It's a student copy that I got about 3 years ago. My understanding was the key was for life but only allowed to be used for educational purposes and not business purposes, which this falls under.
Is that a DreamSpark key? If it is then it is only valid for the duration that you are in college... I asked a Microsoft Licensing person that when I graduated from undergrad. Either way, from what @scottalanmiller is saying licensing for the public cloud is generally implausible since you don't know the underlying hardware.
That are permanent as far as I know but you still have to follow proper licensing conditions. You loose access to new software when you are no longer a student but can keep using the old. It just like technet was if you stopped your subscription you could keep using the old stuff.
Yep you're right.
End of Student Status.
The DreamSpark Direct Subscription is a special offering for students. Once you no longer qualify for the DreamSpark Direct
Subscription (due to graduation or otherwise no longer meeting the definition of "you" above), your DreamSpark Direct Subscription will terminate; however, you may continue to use the software you obtained prior to termination of your student status subject to the terms of this agreement.Sorry it was explained incorrectly to me. Good to know.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Anyways, if Microsoft wants to come yell at me for it, I'll let them. Until then, it's staying as is.
Just so you understand, as a licensing issue goes, this is potentially millions of dollars of pirating, not just a copy of Windows. Yeah, they'd have to come after you. But all it requires is for them to audit CloudatCost, not you, and you are swept up in an audit of lots of other people. And you have no means of paying the "true up" fee. Nor do your parents. Nor does everyone you know combined.
And let's be realistic. The chances they'd pursue it and not just shut down the license is pretty low.
Just because they aren't actively enforcing it to you doesn't make it legal.
Again, while I care, I don't. It's not hurting anyone. Argue that all you want, but it's true.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Business or not licensing terms are terms. It's not legal to break them. And for that matter they can garnish your wages.
Forever.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
I not in a business environment. Even if MS sued me, they'd get nothing.
True, but you'd lose everything. And yes, this is a business environment because of the multi-user environment. It's a grey area as to if you are business or not since you are on a shared business use platform. Don't expect you claiming to not be business use will matter in court given the scenario.
If you were running this at home, that would be completely different, because you aren't sharing infrastructure with businesses.
I hear people say this all the time. I'm Not using it 'for profit' so they don't care if I break the terms, pirate. etc. Yes they do. You are still using the product.
Try going into walmart and stealing movies and walking out saying "It's okay I'm not using it for profit' - That's the flawed logic you are using.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
I not in a business environment. Even if MS sued me, they'd get nothing.
True, but you'd lose everything. And yes, this is a business environment because of the multi-user environment. It's a grey area as to if you are business or not since you are on a shared business use platform. Don't expect you claiming to not be business use will matter in court given the scenario.
If you were running this at home, that would be completely different, because you aren't sharing infrastructure with businesses.
I hear people say this all the time. I'm Not using it 'for profit' so they don't care if I break the terms, pirate. etc. Yes they do. You are still using the product.
Try going into walmart and stealing movies and walking out saying "It's okay I'm not using it for profit' - That's the flawed logic you are using.
And, in the SMB market, the real money is not made by suing businesses. It is made by suing businesses, piercing the corporate veil and taking the owners for all that they are worth - which is where the real money is often hiding. In this case, they get to go straight for you. Because the can garnish your wages for life, it's still very worth it to them. They won't put you in jail, that gets them nothing. They want the money.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Anyways, if Microsoft wants to come yell at me for it, I'll let them. Until then, it's staying as is.
Just so you understand, as a licensing issue goes, this is potentially millions of dollars of pirating, not just a copy of Windows. Yeah, they'd have to come after you. But all it requires is for them to audit CloudatCost, not you, and you are swept up in an audit of lots of other people. And you have no means of paying the "true up" fee. Nor do your parents. Nor does everyone you know combined.
And let's be realistic. The chances they'd pursue it and not just shut down the license is pretty low.
Just because they aren't actively enforcing it to you doesn't make it legal.
Again, while I care, I don't. It's not hurting anyone. Argue that all you want, but it's true.
Not hurting anyone doesn't mean you are entitled to break the law. How does not hurting anyone justify it? speeding a few miles hurting? Well it could but it doesn't always.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Not hurting anyone doesn't mean you are entitled to break the law. How does not hurting anyone justify it? speeding a few miles hurting? Well it could but it doesn't always.
Well and technically it is hurting Microsoft to the tune of the amount of the license violation. It's a weird situation where you could do "almost" the same thing for free, but you can't.
And no matter what, Microsoft is losing here. They licensed this for you in a specific way. If you want to do it the way you are doing it, you have to pay. Is it millions? No, go to Rackspace, Amazon, Vultr or whomever and do it and MS doesn't make millions, but they do make $10/mo per install. So this is hurting Microsoft no matter how you look at it.
-
$120 a year for MS on Rackspace, etc? that seems like a bargain compared to actually buying a license.
-
@Dashrender said:
$120 a year for MS on Rackspace, etc? that seems like a bargain compared to actually buying a license.
Not really. And I'm estimating, but it is close to that. But consider that a Standard license gets you two VMs "forever" for ~$700. On RS it is $120/yr. Figure a five year lifespan you are paying $1,200 on RS compared to $700 direct. But you get SA equivalent with built in updates and you only pay for what you use. So it balances out well. No way to do apples to apples.
-
You guys can keep this discussion about licensing going all you want. I'm done with it.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
You guys can keep this discussion about licensing going all you want. I'm done with it.
You were never in it. You made the decision that you aren't concerned about licensing before this began. You were never actually going to consider if you had validly licensed or not. You made that very clear.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
$120 a year for MS on Rackspace, etc? that seems like a bargain compared to actually buying a license.
Not really. And I'm estimating, but it is close to that. But consider that a Standard license gets you two VMs "forever" for ~$700. On RS it is $120/yr. Figure a five year lifespan you are paying $1,200 on RS compared to $700 direct. But you get SA equivalent with built in updates and you only pay for what you use. So it balances out well. No way to do apples to apples.
Great points, but the built in SA type updates is where I figure you're coming out ahead, Windows Server with SA is close to $1200 for the first 3 years, and another $350+ for every three years after that.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
You guys can keep this discussion about licensing going all you want. I'm done with it.
Not to care about this stuff.. especially publicly is a good way to get turned down for any marketing, sales or IT job. Heck even if you get it and they found this you'd likely be terminated on the spot. You seem to not care about any rules whether it's laws (piracy), terms of a licences or Spiceworks rules on moderation. There is a proper way to do things.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
$120 a year for MS on Rackspace, etc? that seems like a bargain compared to actually buying a license.
Not really. And I'm estimating, but it is close to that. But consider that a Standard license gets you two VMs "forever" for ~$700. On RS it is $120/yr. Figure a five year lifespan you are paying $1,200 on RS compared to $700 direct. But you get SA equivalent with built in updates and you only pay for what you use. So it balances out well. No way to do apples to apples.
Great points, but the built in SA type updates is where I figure you're coming out ahead, Windows Server with SA is close to $1200 for the first 3 years, and another $350+ for every three years after that.
Maybe it's just government but MS has always giving us SA for the first 3 years with any purchase. I've only had to pay after that for SA.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
$120 a year for MS on Rackspace, etc? that seems like a bargain compared to actually buying a license.
Not really. And I'm estimating, but it is close to that. But consider that a Standard license gets you two VMs "forever" for ~$700. On RS it is $120/yr. Figure a five year lifespan you are paying $1,200 on RS compared to $700 direct. But you get SA equivalent with built in updates and you only pay for what you use. So it balances out well. No way to do apples to apples.
Great points, but the built in SA type updates is where I figure you're coming out ahead, Windows Server with SA is close to $1200 for the first 3 years, and another $350+ for every three years after that.
Maybe it's just government but MS has always giving us SA for the first 3 years with any purchase. I've only had to pay after that for SA.
For the $700 price?
-
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
$120 a year for MS on Rackspace, etc? that seems like a bargain compared to actually buying a license.
Not really. And I'm estimating, but it is close to that. But consider that a Standard license gets you two VMs "forever" for ~$700. On RS it is $120/yr. Figure a five year lifespan you are paying $1,200 on RS compared to $700 direct. But you get SA equivalent with built in updates and you only pay for what you use. So it balances out well. No way to do apples to apples.
Great points, but the built in SA type updates is where I figure you're coming out ahead, Windows Server with SA is close to $1200 for the first 3 years, and another $350+ for every three years after that.
Maybe it's just government but MS has always giving us SA for the first 3 years with any purchase. I've only had to pay after that for SA.
For the $700 price?
Pricing is slighting better. I always buy volume through Open Licences. Doesn't include any CALs though. Although I think that stopped including any cals in all 2012 versions.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
$120 a year for MS on Rackspace, etc? that seems like a bargain compared to actually buying a license.
Not really. And I'm estimating, but it is close to that. But consider that a Standard license gets you two VMs "forever" for ~$700. On RS it is $120/yr. Figure a five year lifespan you are paying $1,200 on RS compared to $700 direct. But you get SA equivalent with built in updates and you only pay for what you use. So it balances out well. No way to do apples to apples.
Great points, but the built in SA type updates is where I figure you're coming out ahead, Windows Server with SA is close to $1200 for the first 3 years, and another $350+ for every three years after that.
Maybe it's just government but MS has always giving us SA for the first 3 years with any purchase. I've only had to pay after that for SA.
For the $700 price?
Pricing is slighting better. I always buy volume through Open Licences. Doesn't include any CALs though. Although I think that stopped including any cals in all 2012 versions.
I'm sure you're right that it's gov't pricing.
