Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

VSarkiss (704)

  (email not shown publicly)
Yahoo! ID: vah3sark (Add User, Send Message)

I haven't really taken the time to set this up, but you can look at my home node [] on Perl Monks.

Journal of VSarkiss (704)

Monday May 12, 2003
04:59 PM

Proprietary licenses suck, especially when misunderstood

[ #12144 ]

This is my first week at the new client, and so far I don't have access to the SQL Server I'm supposed to be writing load routines for. Why? Because the client head of software procurement is convinced that Microsoft's license for SQL Server means that installing Enterprise Manager (the DBA tool) is equivalent to bringing up a new instance. That is, there's no difference between a client and a server.

It doesn't matter that I have the licensing FAQ page from Microsoft's web site, or the text of the EULA, or anything. He has a letter from Microsoft -- which he couldn't show me -- saying "client = server". Nothing I can do or say makes a difference. We need another server license, bang, full stop, that's it.

Me: "Ask any SQL Server DBA. The client is separate from the server."
Him: "Not according to this Microsoft letter."
Me: "I've worked in a lot of SQL Server shops. I can refer you to the procurement manager in any of them."
Him: "They're all wrong."
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

So now I have to wait for the client's project manager, who's out of town this week, to approve the $1,200 expenditure, followed by some unknown amount of time to get a server license. All this because somebody's scared out of their wits by Microsoft's nasty licensing games.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • This will sound crazy for some reason I don't understand, I'm sure.

    Couldn't you just contact Microsoft on the phone? Feel free to explain to me why it's not possible -- I just have the feeling that this is a guy that, if he feels he can blame someone at Microsoft for telling him this, he'll go ahead with it.

    I'm sure there's some obvious thing I don't know about interacting with Microsoft directly, so go 'head and learn me. :)


    You are what you think.
    • You're presuming this person is rational. It's more like, "I know what's going on, don't try to confuse me with the facts."

      I showed him the text of the EULA, I pointed out that the server component won't even install on Win2k professional, but to no avail. He couldn't even get the name of the product right, but he knew how it worked. And no, he doesn't know where that letter from MS is, but he knows what it said: the whole client company is violating the license agreement.

      I actually wondered whether he