Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.tools -> Re: Oracle on Windows Server Vs Xp-Pro

Re: Oracle on Windows Server Vs Xp-Pro

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:55:21 +1100
Message-ID: <41ca4fb9$0$13948$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>


Newton Bolton wrote:

> 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",

Yes. It has a license to do what the license permits it to do. And since the license I quoted forbids other machines connecting to it unless for the purposes of file and print services, Remote access or IIS, then merely having purchased another copy of Windows doesn't give that other copy the right to violate the terms of the original license!

> 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???

The definition is the EULA is quite explicit:

"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..."

So the question to ask is probably: does the device do file sharing, printer sharing, IIS or remote access work. None of the devices you describe, I think, with the possible exception of the Palm Pilot, do those things. But let's not get into a legal debate for which neither of us is qualified.

>> 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.

There's nothing "naturally" about it. I've generally found them to be perfectly reasonable people.

> Contracts are always subject to
> interpretation.

Yes, by courts at the end of the day. And courts are guided by what the lawyers before them say. And Microsoft has just a tad more cash to brief its lawyers than you have yours, I would imagine. So yeah: feel free to "interpret" all you want, but the precautionary principle should probably apply, because I suspect I know who would win any court-decided interpretation!!

> Each party to a contract has the right to make good
> faith interpretations of the meaning of the language.

Certainly, we are all free to make good faith interpretations. But ultimately, contracts are legally determined. It's the court's interpretation that we all must eventually bow to.

I don't want to keep this sort of thing going. EULAs are notoriously obscure at the best of times, and neither what you nor I think ultimately matters a damn when it comes to their actual determination. The point I made to the OP was simply that the 10-PC limit is well-known; that it *might* apply (and, OK, that *I* think it does, but whatever), and that he should tread carefully as a result. And that's all leaving aside the issue that it is really not a terribly sensible way to go in the first place to run Oracle in a production environment on a Workstation-class O/S.

More than that, I don't think it productive to go. So that's my contributions to the thread over with. :-)

Regards
HJR Received on Wed Dec 22 2004 - 22:55:21 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US