Re: Oracle on Windows Server Vs Xp-Pro

From: Frank van Bortel <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:23:32 +0100
Message-ID: <cqh8o8$oob$1@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>

Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> Frank van Bortel wrote:
>

>> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>> [snip!]
>>  >       [...]  computers or other electronic devices (each
>>       a "Device") [...]
>>
>>>       [...]    Except [some MS products], 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 [more ...], unless
>>>       the Device has a separate license for the Product.
>>>
>>> Now, I'm no lawyer, but that certainly reads as though allowing 
>>> *anyone at all* to connect from a remote PC to an XP Pro Workstation 
>>> for the purposes of accessing an Oracle database is outside the scope 
>>> of licensed activity!! A connection to an Oracle database certainly 
>>> sounds to me like it would count as a "Device using, accessing, 
>>> displaying or running other executable software residing on your 
>>> Workstation".
>>>
>>
>> That would not even allow me to use the 6 USB connections, and
>> 4 Firewire, and then connect a (non-USB) keyboard...

>
>
> Frank -that's what was asked about the barcode scanner, I think. Those
> are 'peripherals', not 'Devices'. Devices are defined in the EULA I
Sorry - did not read all of the thread.

> originally quoted as something which makes use of file and print sharing
> services, IIS and Remote Access. Your keyboard, USB tea cosy and
> Firewire-powered undergarment warmer would not count!! (Though a
> Firewire-powered undergarment is probably illegal for other reasons).

Not in the thread I respond to here, the one you quote from eula.txt in \WINDOWS\system32 - that made me respond in the first place: a device being defined as a computer or other electronic device (how vague can you get?!?), and any device using software on the workstation (presumably, the Product software, not just *any* s/w - which, btw leaves the option to install a non-MS TCP/IP stack...)
>

>> Surely that would not hold in any court. MS wish they could,
>> surely, but it sounds to me like "illegally restrictive".
>> But then, I'm not a lawyer, either :)

>
>
> If indeed it had the meaning you surmise, then it would obviously be a
> complete no-no. But is it likely Microsoft would go to the trouble of
> drafting such an indefensible license agreement? (Rhetorical
> question!!). On the other hand, if we distinguish between peripherals
> which are necessary to the function of the device, or which enhance the
> function of the device; and other *devices* themselves seeking to attach
> to the device for some mere application purpose, then it's not that
> restrictive.
>
> You have to go also, I think, by 'industry practice' -and it's well
> known in the industry, generally, that Workstations aren't servers, but
> that they have a plethora of Firewire and USB ports for a reason.
>
> I was afraid this would happen... I declare the end of my participation
> in the thread, but I can't resist a bit of Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke
> Ball Company legal banter....

Eh? Care to explain the Carlill v ... bit?
>
> It'll be Donaghue and Stevenson with the snail in the ginger beer bottle
> next...
>

Ditto - I heard about scorpions in beer, but snails in ginger beer? Must be a French invention ;-) (at least - the french would regard it an invention)

>> Merry XMas, and a happy 2005!
>> Frank van Bortel

>
>
> You too.
> Regards
> HJR

-- 
Merry XMAS, and all the best for 2005,
Frank van Bortel

Received on Fri Dec 24 2004 - 08:23:32 CST