@Obsolesce said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:
@PhlipElder said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:
@CCWTech said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:
@PhlipElder said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:
@CCWTech said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:
@PhlipElder said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:
@Obsolesce said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:
@PhlipElder said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:
@Obsolesce We're going to have to agree to disagree.
The peer-to-peer setup has been around since Token Ring that I can think of off the top and abides by Microsoft's licensing.
We've been through audits in peer-to-peer settings, as mentioned SMB was our bread and butter, with nary an issue with setups like the p2p mentioned in AVIMark for their tiny setup. We're usually the ones schooling the auditors anyway.
TTFN
So you're saying Microsoft licensing terms do not apply if installed on devices on peer to peer networks?
You've got a lot of theft under your belt, then. Willful ignorance of terms. MVP of SBS means shit... as does (wrongfully) convincing auditors of theft.
As mentioned, let's agree to disagree. TTFN
EDIT: If you really think you have a case then report it to the BSA.
Accusing someone of theft based on an subjective interpretation of terms and conditions is a pretty serious accusation.
Suffice it to say, put up or shut up.
It is theft. There is no other way to look at it. The fact that you have to interpret it subjectively and not objectively speaks volumes.
And it's not the BSA that investigates. Microsoft works with a different company. One of the vet clinics that I am personally aware of that believes you can do this is being audited because they got caught.
BSA is in Canada.
As I've mentioned, peer to peer has been around for a very long time.
What I'm being told here is that every peer to peer setup was illegal and thus theft. Yet, in the audits we've participated in when a peer to peer was involved none were knocked for it.
It's pretty easy to sling the mud and armchair quarterback like this.
Show me some Microsoft based resources that clearly interpret things they way that is being stated here. Since the semantics and legalese seem to be the catch let's see a clear statement from Microsoft that a peer to peer setup where folks are sharing files and a printer or two is indeed illegal and thus "theft" as it's being called here.
Show me the money.
A high school student could understand this. You can not use it to host a server with certain exceptions. Because AVImark is not using just file share services, it doesn't fit the exceptions. That's it. So easy to understand.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/UseTerms/Retail/Windows/11/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_11_English.htm
It just boggles my mind that the plain English, or the Queen's English if you're a Canucklehead like me, is right freaking there.
Seriously.
Dude, let's break it down (starting to feel like I'm explaining things to a 2 year old)...
The following services _ ONLY _: file services, print services, IIS
AVImark is not those ^ (additionally, the limit is 20 devices)
...synchronize data between devices
AVImark does not fall under synchronizing data between devicevs.
FURTHER MORE:
You may not use the software (Windows 10/11) on the device to operate the device as a server. (exceptions above, but we already covered them as a no-go)
This is what installing AVImark on Windows 10/11 does to the device. It turns the operation of the device into a server (peer to peer or whatever bullshit you're spewing doesn't matter). It's a database. It's a server. It does not fall under the exceptions noted.
EVEN FURTHER MORE:
you may not install the software (Windows 10/11) on a device for use only by remote users
AVImark is this. It's meant to be installed on a "server" from which all access is done remotely.
You can reverse this as well. You are showing (correctly) that Avimark is not the exception. But there is an opposite situation. Avimark is the exact "rule". It is the EXACT case for which Windows Server licensing is required. It's not a fringe case, not a maybe, not a "kind of like", it is EXACTLY the type of workload for which server licensing is currently, and has always required. It's a perfect example of "as far from an exception as one can possibly be." It's a full client / server database backed server application in the traditional sense.
It is, and I truly mean this, our most commonly used example here of "what does an application that requires server licensing look like." Because it's so simple, no IT person should be able to be confused when using this as the example because there's no grey area, nothing to misunderstand, nothing complex. By the book server application with nothing new or confusing, nothing that would ever give it any hope of an exception.