New MS Licencing Changes

[davidbarclay]

So, what are everyone's thoughts? What do you intend to do, if anything?

For those how missed it, Microsoft laced up the gloves and threw the first big punch yesterday. Vmware's response is here:

http://www.vmware.com/solutions/whitepapers/msoft_licensing_wp.html

I expect this thread to be a long one, so let's leave off the MS bashing and discuss what we can do about it and how we can adjust our strategies.

I am mostly concerned about the vMotion implications and how best to MS licence a solution.

Dave

[acr]

I think the third paragraph says it all.. Freedom of choice..

I think that the whole virtual market place should be open, without restriction..

Virtualization's environmental benefits alone should be reason enough for legislation to prevent MS from taking any stance that stifles organizations from virtualizing..

[wobbly1]

the vmotion bit is a question of interpretation imo. As my hardware (virtual) remains the same (including mac addresses etc) after a move under vmotion then my vm's o/s will not know its moved and therefore will not be in breach of the ms licensing rules

I see a court case on the horizon though

[davidbarclay]

the vmotion bit is a question of interpretation imo.

I agree. How is this different than any snapshot/replication/cloning/etc solution? If they go after Vmware on this, they also need to go after Symantec...and while they are at it EMC, HP, IBM, HDS etc!

If it goes legal, it will take 3 years+. I just hope it doesn't stifle innovation.

Dave

[GBromage]

snapshot/replication/cloning/etc solution?

Snapshot and replication is no problem. They can be considered a backup solution. The issue is the concurrently executing copies.

Perhaps VMware could bring out a new version of ESX with a different name, with Vmotion bundled in there.

That way, you could claim that it's one single operating system running on clustered hardware, therefore the whole cluster would be the single distributed physical computer.

[davidbarclay]

The issue is the concurrently executing copies.

vMotion does not concurrently execute Windows - it just moves memory.

Dave

[GBromage]

Agreed. But VMotion is a hardware platform change (apparently). I was thinking of snapshoting in terms of making a backup for rollback or DR purposes. Because the copy would not be executed at the same time as the original, that shouldn't violate the licence, which allows for making a backup.

But, if you look at page 7 of MS's paper, apparently on the old licensing scheme, we have to have second licence for the VHDs/VMDKs stored on a SAN. I would assume NAS and NFS mounts (and Windows shares) as well, and any form of remote storage. Regardless if the VMs are powered on or off.

Was anyone else aware of this? Or does it only apply if you copy the files off the SAN onto local disk and then execute them locally?

Message was edited by:

GBromage

[davidbarclay]

No I wasn't aware of that. So my original comment about snapshots, images etc from ANY vendors technology would apply to this?

Dave

[GBromage]

I would presume so, if the copy is stored on a device which has an autonomous processor.

If you backup to a local hard disk, or a local tape, that should be OK.

But to another server, SAN or NAS, nope. Separate licence required.

If you back up to a fibre attached tape drive, probably not. The tape library has a CPU and operating system. Therefore an additional license fee would be payable.

USB device? Well, the USB controller in the device has a microprocessor and an operating system too, so I would assume that's not allowed either.

[jasonboche]

This isn't going to go over real well I don't think. Doesn't MS have enough money already? I'm beginning to feel ashamed as a Windows Administrator. What a downer.

[Goatie]

A very good and concise account of Microsoft's practices. You would have thought they'd learned their lesson to not be so obvious.... and I thought the Netscape/IE anti-trust case was obviously premeditated. This is just in your face!

I liked the new SQL licensing until I read it in depth. If you have the SQL (enterprise I think it was,) you can run unlimited virtual licenses. Great!!! BUT!!!! I have four 4CPU hosts, so I'd need to buy four 4CPU SQL Enterprise licenses, as that VM might run at any time on any of those hosts.

Give a little with one hand to satisfy the media... take everything else with the other.

Someone want to put this on digg and slashdot?

[GBromage]

It's already on The Register so it will probably be on Slashdot soon.

However, as Reg. pointed out, whilst VMWare's points are valid, Microsoft is in this to make themselves rich, not their competitors.

I guess all we can do is keeping doing what we're already doing: Use Linux and other open source software whenever possible!

[jasonboche]

I wonder if Bill signed off on this policy? Is this a sign of things to come under the new MS regime?

[davidbarclay]

yeah, cause they never did anything like this before!

To say Microsoft is a monopoly is an understatement. So much so, i will probably be sued for using the word monopoly because they have patented it's use as they have demonstrated it is important to their business model!

Dave

[GBromage]

To say Microsoft is a monopoly is an understatement.

The trouble is, they became a monopoly through one of two ways. Either:

A) They wrote pretty good software that does the job; and/or

B) We, the consumers, purchased it.

(Also, remember that, in the virtualisation field, Microsoft don't have a monopoly. Far from it.)

[davidbarclay]

It's both. They do have good software..there I said it.

What I don't like is blatant changes to "fair use" to lock out a competitor.

What if Microsoft started to make x86 servers....they could just modify Windows to only run on their systems - good night Dell! Is that any different? Not really.

Dave

[kimono]

I wonder if ESX Embedded would make any difference being hardware ...

[Gabrie1]

And what I fear more, that once they have established their market share and ruled out any serious competition, the policies just dissapear.....

Gabrie

[epping]

I am wondering about boot from SAN, OK you may not swap out a blade every 90 days, but its the same as vmotion in this respect (its installed in the SAN and run off a blade), i am wondering that as a community we can petition MS in some way??

[f_bastianello]

I just hope that thanks to MS move VMware will reconsider developing their products on opensource software.... just thinking about VC and VI client. I had the impression that with VI3 VMware was getting colser and closer to MS.... but they (MS) acted accordingly, i.e. as they ever do.