Yesterday was a day.In-Office was insane.
Windows terminal server alternative license#
Since you have a license agreement with Microsoft that says that you may not do this - why do you feel that some third party with no tie to Microsoft can alter your license agreement? Remember, at a technology level, you already have the capability to do what you want for free. This is one of those many situations where "too good to be true" really is and should set off alarms. So Microsoft can't even go after them (if they were in a jurisdiction where that was an option) since there is a legal means to use the product.
Windows terminal server alternative full#
There are ways for these products to be used legitimately, like when you have full TS licensing in place, and while there is literally no benefit when doing that it doesn't change the legality of the situation. Microsoft can't touch them, as it is you, not they, that is violating the licensing. If you can't get the appropriate license from Microsoft, that's not their problem. From a technology standpoint, they allow you to do what you want. XP Unlimited has no responsibility for you being unable to obtain the necessary licensing from Microsoft. The reason that these products can exist, and Microsoft has commented on this, is that the illegality is purely between you (the end user) and Microsoft, it has nothing to do with the company in between. No Terminal Service license manager required So how do these factor into the equation? I see that you mention China a few times about their claims and practices (or lack thereof), but some of the other alternatives that do exactly the same thing are based in America have been in existence for a long time and recently upgraded to include Windows7 et al. They have to be "legal" in some way, otherwise, why would Microsoft "allow" them to continue with this practice for so long? I am still at the research stage and may end up going with MS TS eventually, but I, like some others, am not convinced that the products are illegal. I then came across this thread and it has really shed some light on the issue. I am kinda late on this thread and not sure if it's till open, but I was researching TS alternatives and XPUnlimited came up and was looking like one of my options. I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty confident that if I asked MS to clarify and they said "we can't tell" and then we went to court they would not only lose but be slapped with something close to "intent to defraud" or, at least, "bad faith" which could nullify the EULA completely, in theory. I've always sided on the edge of caution when it comes to MS licensing, their products in general for that matter. You can't just write gibberish and sue people for not knowing what you "meant" - especially if you can't tell them what you meant!Īgree'd on the judge but MS have a pretty good legal team and a "Better to ask forgiveness than permission" attitude. If the INTENT was to be confusing and inaccurate then a judge will (should) take that into account. Making the EULA not cover the bases leaves it open to a judge's interpretation and if MS claims that they don't even know what it means the judge is unlikely to side with them. It is clear that the EULA is not precise in this situation and it is a somewhat gray area. The EULA is not magically enforceable and if MS admits that they can't decipher it and do not know its intent then a judge is unlikely to side with them.