licensing

[Michael Vardinghus]

By reading this I seem to conclude that in order to use the web component on
a client i need to buy a full xp license for that client ?

http://24.204.143.27/dotnet/tidbits/default.htm

Is this true ? What if the organization isn't ready to install xp ? Will the
still need to buy a whole client ?

What are we talking about here approximately pr client for an organization
that has office 2000 already ?

\Michael V.

 

[Michael Vardinghus]

But how is this to be interpreted?

Organizations that own an Enterprise, Select, or Maintenance Agreement for
Office XP but have not deployed Office XP yet, or plan to deploy Office XP
in phases, can share component-based Web pages with users who have not yet
installed Office XP by using the licensing mechanism supported by Internet
Explorer.

Plan to deploy....?" Now ?... two years...?

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use the
xp component ?

\Michael Vardinghus

 

[Alvin Bruney [MVP]]

By reading this I seem to conclude that in order to use the web component

on
a client i need to buy a full xp license for that client ?

The conclusions is not correct.

Microsoft does not sell licenses so it is not possible to buy licenses.
Licenses are provided automatically when a qualifying product is installed.
Non-interactive static use is always free and does not require any
qualifying product installation. Interactive use is not free, it requires
installation of a qualifying product in most instances.

What are we talking about here approximately pr client for an organization
that has office 2000 already ?

Your cost is based on purchase of a qualifying microsoft product per desk
top

 

[Alvin Bruney [MVP]]

Plan to deploy....?" Now ?... two years...?

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use the
xp component ?

This portion talks about providing interactive use for users who do not have
a qualifying product installed but are within a corporate setting. Your plan
to deploy the product is part of the IT dept. policy based on your select
agreement.

Typically, non-interactive static use most often suffices for a large
majority of applications - for example, rendering chart data client-side.
Some applications require interactive usage. Interactive usage is defined as
the ability to massage the data contained in the component. In this case,
the user will need to have a qualifying product installed.

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use the
xp component ?

static, non-interactive use is always free and does not need any qualifying
product installation.
That type of aggreement is not a license. Interactive usage requires a
license which is available thru a qualifying product installation. If you
are not able to install a qualifying product but are part of a corporation
which has that type of aggreement, then you may use the components in
interactive mode as long as your IT personnel plan to deploy the components
at a later date. The interactivity is provided via a shared license scheme
specially designed for this purpose. Please see these articles for further
clarification:

licensing
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555075
shared licensing
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555094

 

[Michael Vardinghus]

Thanks Alvin

But there is the "work-around" where you don't have to install a qualifying
product....and you use the sentence "plan to install later..." - do you know
how this is interpreted ? Does it mean that 2-3 users can implement web
components or can the web componentes be used as a large scale interactively
olap reporting environment for years without implementing XP ?

I'm not in a company - i'm a self-employed consultant...

\Michael Vardinghus

Plan to deploy....?" Now ?... two years...?

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use the
xp component ?

This portion talks about providing interactive use for users who do not have
a qualifying product installed but are within a corporate setting. Your plan
to deploy the product is part of the IT dept. policy based on your select
agreement.

Typically, non-interactive static use most often suffices for a large
majority of applications - for example, rendering chart data client-side.
Some applications require interactive usage. Interactive usage is defined as
the ability to massage the data contained in the component. In this case,
the user will need to have a qualifying product installed.

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use the
xp component ?

static, non-interactive use is always free and does not need any qualifying
product installation.
That type of aggreement is not a license. Interactive usage requires a
license which is available thru a qualifying product installation. If you
are not able to install a qualifying product but are part of a corporation
which has that type of aggreement, then you may use the components in
interactive mode as long as your IT personnel plan to deploy the components
at a later date. The interactivity is provided via a shared license scheme
specially designed for this purpose. Please see these articles for further
clarification:

licensing
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555075
shared licensing
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555094

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok

But how is this to be interpreted?

Organizations that own an Enterprise, Select, or Maintenance Agreement for
Office XP but have not deployed Office XP yet, or plan to deploy Office XP
in phases, can share component-based Web pages with users who have not yet
installed Office XP by using the licensing mechanism supported by Internet
Explorer.

Plan to deploy....?" Now ?... two years...?

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use the
xp component ?

\Michael Vardinghus

"Michael Vardinghus" <[email protected]> skrev i en meddelelse
component
on Will
the

 

[Alvin Bruney [MVP]]

"plan to install later..." - do you know
how this is interpreted ?
No. I do not. Interpretation is solely at the discretion of Microsoft and
the governing contracts/aggreements.

If I were pressed for an answer on this, I'd first qualify my response with:
I do not work for Microsoft nor do I represent their interest.

Here is my opinion.

Firstly, shared licensing does not and was not intended to target the I.S.V.
It primarily targets large corporations where installation and setup of
applications is significantly expensive in terms of time and resources. If
such a corporation, with x amount of users, buys x amount of a qualifying
product, it is easy to deduce that the corporation fully intends to deploy
to x number of users irrespective of time frame. In this case, shared
licensing is a valid option. You can see how this picture does not apply to
an ISV because typically, the ISV develops for an open market and does not
exercise control over the user's desktop and consequently cannot enforce
licensing terms of use.

Explain how you intend to use the component and I may have a more specific
answer for your case. It is possible even as an ISV to operate safely with
the bounds of licensing.


--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok

Thanks Alvin

But there is the "work-around" where you don't have to install a
qualifying
product....and you use the sentence "plan to install later..." - do you
know
how this is interpreted ? Does it mean that 2-3 users can implement web
components or can the web componentes be used as a large scale
interactively
olap reporting environment for years without implementing XP ?

I'm not in a company - i'm a self-employed consultant...

\Michael Vardinghus

Plan to deploy....?" Now ?... two years...?

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use the
xp component ?

This portion talks about providing interactive use for users who do not have
a qualifying product installed but are within a corporate setting. Your plan
to deploy the product is part of the IT dept. policy based on your select
agreement.

Typically, non-interactive static use most often suffices for a large
majority of applications - for example, rendering chart data client-side.
Some applications require interactive usage. Interactive usage is defined as
the ability to massage the data contained in the component. In this case,
the user will need to have a qualifying product installed.

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use the
xp component ?

static, non-interactive use is always free and does not need any qualifying
product installation.
That type of aggreement is not a license. Interactive usage requires a
license which is available thru a qualifying product installation. If you
are not able to install a qualifying product but are part of a
corporation
which has that type of aggreement, then you may use the components in
interactive mode as long as your IT personnel plan to deploy the components
at a later date. The interactivity is provided via a shared license
scheme
specially designed for this purpose. Please see these articles for
further
clarification:

licensing
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555075
shared licensing
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555094

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok

But how is this to be interpreted?

Organizations that own an Enterprise, Select, or Maintenance Agreement for
Office XP but have not deployed Office XP yet, or plan to deploy Office XP
in phases, can share component-based Web pages with users who have not yet
installed Office XP by using the licensing mechanism supported by Internet
Explorer.

Plan to deploy....?" Now ?... two years...?

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use the
xp component ?

\Michael Vardinghus

"Michael Vardinghus" <[email protected]> skrev i en meddelelse
By reading this I seem to conclude that in order to use the web component
on
a client i need to buy a full xp license for that client ?

http://24.204.143.27/dotnet/tidbits/default.htm

Is this true ? What if the organization isn't ready to install xp ? Will
the
still need to buy a whole client ?

What are we talking about here approximately pr client for an
organization
that has office 2000 already ?

\Michael V.

 

[Michael Vardinghus]

One of our primary customers is a large public organization ... they are at
the moment
considering the possibilities between 3-party front end and pivottables.

They have office 2000 all around...

I'm not sure that they actually will choose the OWC because some departments
in the organization
has already bought versions of the 3-party front end.

So just gathering information in case they will choose otherwise...we are
about to make a presentation
where what we will show is very much like a pivottable.

In fact most users will only use drill down and drill up and I think this
actually is possible under the
free license ?

However...I don't it is possible in the free license to make a new selection
in a page field ? And I
think that could be a problem.

But the following solution is ok license-wise...?

Users: 80% no interactivity (free), 20% interactivity

As I interpret your last responses...the LPK is only for companies with a
current projekt for upgrading office.

\Michael V.

"plan to install later..." - do you know
how this is interpreted ?
No. I do not. Interpretation is solely at the discretion of Microsoft and
the governing contracts/aggreements.

If I were pressed for an answer on this, I'd first qualify my response with:
I do not work for Microsoft nor do I represent their interest.

Here is my opinion.

Firstly, shared licensing does not and was not intended to target the I.S.V.
It primarily targets large corporations where installation and setup of
applications is significantly expensive in terms of time and resources. If
such a corporation, with x amount of users, buys x amount of a qualifying
product, it is easy to deduce that the corporation fully intends to deploy
to x number of users irrespective of time frame. In this case, shared
licensing is a valid option. You can see how this picture does not apply to
an ISV because typically, the ISV develops for an open market and does not
exercise control over the user's desktop and consequently cannot enforce
licensing terms of use.

Explain how you intend to use the component and I may have a more specific
answer for your case. It is possible even as an ISV to operate safely with
the bounds of licensing.


--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok

Thanks Alvin

But there is the "work-around" where you don't have to install a
qualifying
product....and you use the sentence "plan to install later..." - do you
know
how this is interpreted ? Does it mean that 2-3 users can implement web
components or can the web componentes be used as a large scale
interactively
olap reporting environment for years without implementing XP ?

I'm not in a company - i'm a self-employed consultant...

\Michael Vardinghus

"Alvin Bruney [MVP]" <vapor at steaming post office> skrev i en meddelelse

Plan to deploy....?" Now ?... two years...?

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and

use
the

xp component ?

This portion talks about providing interactive use for users who do not have
a qualifying product installed but are within a corporate setting. Your plan
to deploy the product is part of the IT dept. policy based on your select
agreement.

Typically, non-interactive static use most often suffices for a large
majority of applications - for example, rendering chart data client-side.
Some applications require interactive usage. Interactive usage is

defined
as

the ability to massage the data contained in the component. In this case,
the user will need to have a qualifying product installed.

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and

use
the

xp component ?

static, non-interactive use is always free and does not need any qualifying
product installation.
That type of aggreement is not a license. Interactive usage requires a
license which is available thru a qualifying product installation. If you
are not able to install a qualifying product but are part of a
corporation
which has that type of aggreement, then you may use the components in
interactive mode as long as your IT personnel plan to deploy the components
at a later date. The interactivity is provided via a shared license
scheme
specially designed for this purpose. Please see these articles for
further
clarification:

licensing
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555075
shared licensing
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555094

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok
But how is this to be interpreted?

Organizations that own an Enterprise, Select, or Maintenance

Agreement
for

Office XP but have not deployed Office XP yet, or plan to deploy

Office
XP

in phases, can share component-based Web pages with users who have

not
yet

installed Office XP by using the licensing mechanism supported by Internet
Explorer.

Plan to deploy....?" Now ?... two years...?

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and

use
the

xp component ?

\Michael Vardinghus

"Michael Vardinghus" <[email protected]> skrev i en meddelelse
By reading this I seem to conclude that in order to use the web component
on
a client i need to buy a full xp license for that client ?

http://24.204.143.27/dotnet/tidbits/default.htm

Is this true ? What if the organization isn't ready to install xp ? Will
the
still need to buy a whole client ?

What are we talking about here approximately pr client for an
organization
that has office 2000 already ?

\Michael V.

 

[Alvin Bruney [MVP]]

Right.

In my case, i simply wrote an interactive application. Users who didn't have
a license only got to use it as readonly which was sufficient in most cases.
The cases which required interactivity, the users were asked to upgrade to
the correct version.

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok

One of our primary customers is a large public organization ... they are
at
the moment
considering the possibilities between 3-party front end and pivottables.

They have office 2000 all around...

I'm not sure that they actually will choose the OWC because some
departments
in the organization
has already bought versions of the 3-party front end.

So just gathering information in case they will choose otherwise...we are
about to make a presentation
where what we will show is very much like a pivottable.

In fact most users will only use drill down and drill up and I think this
actually is possible under the
free license ?

However...I don't it is possible in the free license to make a new
selection
in a page field ? And I
think that could be a problem.

But the following solution is ok license-wise...?

Users: 80% no interactivity (free), 20% interactivity

As I interpret your last responses...the LPK is only for companies with a
current projekt for upgrading office.

\Michael V.

"plan to install later..." - do you know
how this is interpreted ?
No. I do not. Interpretation is solely at the discretion of Microsoft and
the governing contracts/aggreements.

If I were pressed for an answer on this, I'd first qualify my response with:
I do not work for Microsoft nor do I represent their interest.

Here is my opinion.

Firstly, shared licensing does not and was not intended to target the I.S.V.
It primarily targets large corporations where installation and setup of
applications is significantly expensive in terms of time and resources.
If
such a corporation, with x amount of users, buys x amount of a qualifying
product, it is easy to deduce that the corporation fully intends to
deploy
to x number of users irrespective of time frame. In this case, shared
licensing is a valid option. You can see how this picture does not apply to
an ISV because typically, the ISV develops for an open market and does
not
exercise control over the user's desktop and consequently cannot enforce
licensing terms of use.

Explain how you intend to use the component and I may have a more
specific
answer for your case. It is possible even as an ISV to operate safely
with
the bounds of licensing.


--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok

Thanks Alvin

But there is the "work-around" where you don't have to install a
qualifying
product....and you use the sentence "plan to install later..." - do you
know
how this is interpreted ? Does it mean that 2-3 users can implement web
components or can the web componentes be used as a large scale
interactively
olap reporting environment for years without implementing XP ?

I'm not in a company - i'm a self-employed consultant...

\Michael Vardinghus

"Alvin Bruney [MVP]" <vapor at steaming post office> skrev i en meddelelse
Plan to deploy....?" Now ?... two years...?

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use
the
xp component ?

This portion talks about providing interactive use for users who do
not
have
a qualifying product installed but are within a corporate setting.
Your
plan
to deploy the product is part of the IT dept. policy based on your select
agreement.

Typically, non-interactive static use most often suffices for a large
majority of applications - for example, rendering chart data client-side.
Some applications require interactive usage. Interactive usage is defined
as
the ability to massage the data contained in the component. In this case,
the user will need to have a qualifying product installed.

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use
the
xp component ?

static, non-interactive use is always free and does not need any
qualifying
product installation.
That type of aggreement is not a license. Interactive usage requires a
license which is available thru a qualifying product installation. If you
are not able to install a qualifying product but are part of a
corporation
which has that type of aggreement, then you may use the components in
interactive mode as long as your IT personnel plan to deploy the
components
at a later date. The interactivity is provided via a shared license
scheme
specially designed for this purpose. Please see these articles for
further
clarification:

licensing
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555075
shared licensing
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555094

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok
But how is this to be interpreted?

Organizations that own an Enterprise, Select, or Maintenance Agreement
for
Office XP but have not deployed Office XP yet, or plan to deploy Office
XP
in phases, can share component-based Web pages with users who have not
yet
installed Office XP by using the licensing mechanism supported by
Internet
Explorer.

Plan to deploy....?" Now ?... two years...?

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use
the
xp component ?

\Michael Vardinghus

"Michael Vardinghus" <[email protected]> skrev i en
meddelelse
By reading this I seem to conclude that in order to use the web
component
on
a client i need to buy a full xp license for that client ?

http://24.204.143.27/dotnet/tidbits/default.htm

Is this true ? What if the organization isn't ready to install xp ?
Will
the
still need to buy a whole client ?

What are we talking about here approximately pr client for an
organization
that has office 2000 already ?

\Michael V.

 

[Michael Vardinghus]

thanks alvin

So in non interactive you can't use page fields and do drill through ?

Right.

In my case, i simply wrote an interactive application. Users who didn't have
a license only got to use it as readonly which was sufficient in most cases.
The cases which required interactivity, the users were asked to upgrade to
the correct version.

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok

One of our primary customers is a large public organization ... they are
at
the moment
considering the possibilities between 3-party front end and pivottables.

They have office 2000 all around...

I'm not sure that they actually will choose the OWC because some
departments
in the organization
has already bought versions of the 3-party front end.

So just gathering information in case they will choose otherwise...we are
about to make a presentation
where what we will show is very much like a pivottable.

In fact most users will only use drill down and drill up and I think this
actually is possible under the
free license ?

However...I don't it is possible in the free license to make a new
selection
in a page field ? And I
think that could be a problem.

But the following solution is ok license-wise...?

Users: 80% no interactivity (free), 20% interactivity

As I interpret your last responses...the LPK is only for companies with a
current projekt for upgrading office.

\Michael V.


"Alvin Bruney [MVP]" <vapor at steaming post office> skrev i en meddelelse

"plan to install later..." - do you know
how this is interpreted ?
No. I do not. Interpretation is solely at the discretion of Microsoft and
the governing contracts/aggreements.

If I were pressed for an answer on this, I'd first qualify my response with:
I do not work for Microsoft nor do I represent their interest.

Here is my opinion.

Firstly, shared licensing does not and was not intended to target the I.S.V.
It primarily targets large corporations where installation and setup of
applications is significantly expensive in terms of time and resources.
If
such a corporation, with x amount of users, buys x amount of a qualifying
product, it is easy to deduce that the corporation fully intends to
deploy
to x number of users irrespective of time frame. In this case, shared
licensing is a valid option. You can see how this picture does not

apply
to

an ISV because typically, the ISV develops for an open market and does
not
exercise control over the user's desktop and consequently cannot enforce
licensing terms of use.

Explain how you intend to use the component and I may have a more
specific
answer for your case. It is possible even as an ISV to operate safely
with
the bounds of licensing.


--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok
Thanks Alvin

But there is the "work-around" where you don't have to install a
qualifying
product....and you use the sentence "plan to install later..." - do you
know
how this is interpreted ? Does it mean that 2-3 users can implement web
components or can the web componentes be used as a large scale
interactively
olap reporting environment for years without implementing XP ?

I'm not in a company - i'm a self-employed consultant...

\Michael Vardinghus

"Alvin Bruney [MVP]" <vapor at steaming post office> skrev i en meddelelse
Plan to deploy....?" Now ?... two years...?

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use
the
xp component ?

This portion talks about providing interactive use for users who do
not
have
a qualifying product installed but are within a corporate setting.
Your
plan
to deploy the product is part of the IT dept. policy based on your select
agreement.

Typically, non-interactive static use most often suffices for a large
majority of applications - for example, rendering chart data client-side.
Some applications require interactive usage. Interactive usage is defined
as
the ability to massage the data contained in the component. In this case,
the user will need to have a qualifying product installed.

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use
the
xp component ?

static, non-interactive use is always free and does not need any
qualifying
product installation.
That type of aggreement is not a license. Interactive usage requires a
license which is available thru a qualifying product installation.

If
you

are not able to install a qualifying product but are part of a
corporation
which has that type of aggreement, then you may use the components in
interactive mode as long as your IT personnel plan to deploy the
components
at a later date. The interactivity is provided via a shared license
scheme
specially designed for this purpose. Please see these articles for
further
clarification:

licensing
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555075
shared licensing
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555094

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok
But how is this to be interpreted?

Organizations that own an Enterprise, Select, or Maintenance Agreement
for
Office XP but have not deployed Office XP yet, or plan to deploy Office
XP
in phases, can share component-based Web pages with users who have not
yet
installed Office XP by using the licensing mechanism supported by
Internet
Explorer.

Plan to deploy....?" Now ?... two years...?

Does it mean that if you have the type of aggremement go ahead and use
the
xp component ?

\Michael Vardinghus

"Michael Vardinghus" <[email protected]> skrev i en
meddelelse
By reading this I seem to conclude that in order to use the web
component
on
a client i need to buy a full xp license for that client ?

http://24.204.143.27/dotnet/tidbits/default.htm

Is this true ? What if the organization isn't ready to install xp ?
Will
the
still need to buy a whole client ?

What are we talking about here approximately pr client for an
organization
that has office 2000 already ?

\Michael V.