Re: Oracle on Windows Server Vs Xp-Pro

Newton Bolton wrote:
> Howard J. Rogers wrote:

<snip>
> > ...and in particular this bit:
> >
> > "For Windows XP Professional, the maximum number of other computers
that
> > are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is ten.
This
> > limit includes all transports and resource sharing protocols
combined.
> > For Windows XP Home Edition, the maximum number of other computers
that
> > are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is five.
This
> > limit is the number of simultaneous sessions from other computers
the
> > system is permitted to host."
> >

<snip>
> > Next, read the EULA (eula.txt in \WINDOWS\system32):
> >
> > * Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
> > display and run one copy of the Product on a single
> > computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
> > ("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used
> > by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any
> > single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum
> > of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each
> > a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to
> > utilize the services of the Product solely for File and
> > Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote
> > access (including connection sharing and telephony
> > services). The ten connection maximum includes any
> > indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other
> > software or hardware which pools or aggregates
> > connections. Except as otherwise permitted by the
> > NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop
> > features described below, you may not use the Product
> > to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other
> > executable software residing on the Workstation Computer,
> > nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display,
> > or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless
> > the Device has a separate license for the Product.
> If another Windows Workstation is running a legal copy of the same
> version of Windows, ( "the Product"), then it DOES have a separate
> license for "the Product", and it can connect legally to the
> workstation. If that is not what this means, then what else would
the
> "unless" clause mean?

The clause is talking about running executables on a workstation. It says that you are only permitted to do this under the terms of the remote desktop and associated technologies license. In addition you are only allowed to run the user interface for windows workstation from another box if you have a windows licence for that second box (so no remote control of windows machines from linux boxes by the look of it). The english meaning of the above is in fact plain. You are not allowed to use the workstation product as a server, moreover the number of remote control and sharing type apps at any one time is limited to 5 or 10. The legal meaning would of course require a lawyer.

> If they are trying to forbid using the workstation to serve an Oracle

> Database to a few users, wouldn't they say so?

I believe that they have. On the other hand as you have to pay at least $745 for the Oracle software (based on the 5 user minimum for std edition 1) paying the $500 or so that windows server cost last time I looked doesn't seem entirely onerous.

> Also, what about SQL-Server? Is SQL-Server restricted on workstation

> class machines?

In a word yes. Only the developer edition will even install on Microsoft's workstation OS.

> It is curious that this clause is so general. What is a "Device"?
Is a
> bar-code scanner a "device"? It certainly connects to the PC and
uses
> its resources. What about a palm-pilot attached to the serial port?
Or
> a pen-based tablet, or a device that reads input from a labratory
scale
> or temperature sensor???

same thing applies to a lot of recent licenses, especially for server products when you don't know *how* someone is using your internet accessible service.

> >
> > So, single-user Oracle only according to that. Which I must say
came as
> > a bit of a shock, even to me.

doesn't surprise me at all, especially given that MSSQL is limited in the same way.

> > So am I "certain that the limitation would stop connections to
Oracle"?
> > Absolutely 1000%, provided only that you care about being legal.
:-)
> > What one manages to get away with, and what one can legally achieve
are,
> > regrettably, often two completely different things!
> >
> > For an even more certain answer, however, I think you should get in

> > contact with Microsoft directly.

>
> I don't know that this is so certain. They will naturally give you
the
> answer that is most restrictive. Contracts are always subject to
> interpretation. Each party to a contract has the right to make good

> faith interpretations of the meaning of the language.

Up to a point. On the other hand, as Howard as ably demonstrated these restrictions are widely available and discussed in the public domain, given this it would be hard to argue 'good faith' in court.

Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com Received on Thu Dec 23 2004 - 04:01:22 CST