I see what you're saying Robert; unfortunately, that article doesn't really address some of the key points.(It is also worth bearing in mind that the only overt moves against VNC by commercial entities have come from Symantec, not Microsoft). In any case, the real story behind that policy is a paranoia about a loophole which *DOES* exist in the Microsoft licensing.
Here's what I think that does not and also *does* mean: (1) Look at current Microsoft policy. If you watch what Microsoft support staff say about remote access to Windows systems without the Remote Desktop capabilities, they will continually say: if it can be done interactively, use NetMeeting. If you need a service, use VNC or pcAnywhere. Take a look at the microsoft.public.win2000.termserv.* and microsoft.public.windowsnt.terminalserver.* newsgroup hierarchies to see what I'm talking about. (2) Look at what the quoted material itself says (and implies about functionality) - it says "as permitted" - that means "in the manner of". The functionality you get from the standard remote control tools is that type of functionality. From a commercial standpoint, if Microsoft cannot show an actual loss from a license violation, there is no license violation. (3) The real point to this exercise: Microsoft is afraid that someone can turn XP into a simultaneous multi-user system; with the significant resources available to desktop PCs, that means that if they *do not* claim this, then a 10-user office could use a Windows XP system as a terminal server without buying any client licenses - they would be covered by the 10-connection limit. Here's some historical background - it has to do with the artificial differentiation between "server" and "workstation" in the Microsoft world, and a few ways they got caught with their pants down in the mid-90's. The first thing was that when Windows NT was released it rapidly came to light that despite claims by Microsoft that the kernels were completely different, server/workstation role could be effectively switched by a handful of minor registry edits. In other words, they were selling roughly the same product at half the price, but artificially gutting the security and forcing it down to a 10-connection limit. By at the latest early 1997 there was a big push on inside Microsoft I suspect to come up with as many methods as possible to make the core server OS really different from the workstation OS. Most of this motivation was commercial. Remember, though, that the licensing agreement covering workstations has said nothing about GUI access and that "role modification" prevention is mostly accomplished by Microsoft through the hardwired 10-user limit, the refusal to issue "user license packs" for bumping up workstation remote access limits, and the degraded security model. The second thing that bit them was Citrix. Microsoft was really selling the concept of "small is beautiful" and talking about individual point-and-click systems with no background understanding of the economic and administrative benefits of server centralization. Citrix had well-written agreements with Microsoft which gave them access to the NT 3.x source code, done at a time when Microsoft was convinced that it was a niche market. When it rose through the roof, Microsoft became very concerned - and decided to be "persuasive" with Citrix. Citrix wanted a lot of bucks to be persuaded, Microsoft finally settled on an intermediate price with them, and Microsoft then released Windows NT 4, Terminal Server Edition (sometime in early '98, IIRC). Basically they bought the entire rationale for Citrix as a company, but the marginal markets they had left and the cash infusion gave them enough money to make it worthwhile. In any case, for server connection, the licensing scheme is fairly lucrative and works out like this: If you have an NTish workstation/server at the same rev level or higher than the server, you can connect to its resources for free - be they a terminal connection or simple logon and file/print access. If you have anything else - Win9x, Win3.x, Dos, Linux, Unix, a Macintosh, or what-have-you - you need to get a license to access TS and a license to use file/print. Basically, assuming that upgrades keep coming, Microsoft can look at a bottom-level annual revenue stream of probably $50-$150 per licensed business user of a Windows workstation or server. This is a rough figure of merit, and depending on who does what where with a particular licensing scheme, that bottom-level OS revenue could be as much as $250 for correctly licensed businesses. Again, that's ONLY the OS. Now - to sell Windows XP, Microsoft has been adding in quite a bit of stuff. Most of it consists of components which a mature operating system should have - such as the remote assistance features. The logical location for that to come from was the technology which Microsoft had already integrated into Terminal Server, and which was a simple core part of Windows 2000 server. So that's where they took it from. **** AND HERE'S THE LOOPHOLE *** Microsoft's workstation operating license says that you can have up to 10 user connections to a workstation. You _don't_ need a license for those connections! You can hook up with Linux, Unix, Win9x, your old TRS-80 with 16K RAM that you've wired up with a home-grown TCP-IP stack running over its printer port! Microsoft is deathly afraid of the commercial loss it is exposed to by the technology it has integrated into Windows. In theory, someone could revamp an XP Pro system, rewrite some drivers, and then release a modified system that supports 10 users via simultaneous remote desktops. Microsoft's annual OS revenue per user is suddenly down to $10-15 per user. This is why Microsoft is trying to basically say "you have to access a desktop remotely the way we do it". ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert A. Book" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, 2002-04-22 12:05 Subject: Re: Newbie question > > The short story is, XP could be theoretically converted into a simultaneous > > multi-user graphical OS. They want to make sure they get paid for access if > > anyone does. In any case, on Windows VNC does what NetMeeting, Remote > > Assistance, and the Remote Desktop features do, so this doesn't apply to it. > > It appears that the license restrictionbelow prohibt is even > SINGLE-user remote access! I wonder if they really mean this (in the > sense that they will try to enforce it against VNC). > > > > It's a pity, since I'd just *love* to see someone try to ban an Open Source > > application. It would be a bit like trying to bail out a boat with a fork.... > > Well, it appears that they are trying to do exactly that! I doubt > they could successfully stop EVERYBODY from using VNC, but they could > probably make distribution rather difficult, maybe drive it > "underground." If they could get ISP cooperation, they could block > the standard ports, but that wouldn't affect "intra-net" use. > > This would not affec t just open-source projects, right? Wouldn't it > also affect commercial products like PCAnywhere? Could they ban > PCAnywhere? > > > --Robert > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bruce Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Vnc-List (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, 2002-04-22 02:34 > > Subject: Newbie question > > > > > > > What is the word here about Microsoft, VNC and XP? > > > > > > From > > > http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/03/18/020318oplivingston.xml > > > > > > Microsoft's XP license agreement says, "Except as otherwise permitted by > > > the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described > > > below, 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 may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the > > > Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate > > > license for the Product." > > > > > > > > > bye, > > > Bruce Williams > > > "Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers" > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: > > > 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY > > > See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: > > 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY > > See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > First Law of Work: > If you can't get your work done in the first 24 hours, work nights. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: > 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY > See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html > --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
