[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Brad Rogers wrote:
Even if they do, I doubt some of the people signing the contracts realise that not all their computers can't run the Microsoft software they're paying for, or fear the risk of not being compliant with regards to licensing and just go and blindly get blanket coverage.On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:18:06 +0000 "Adrian Midgley (Gmail)" <amidgley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hello Adrian,chap is usually a reliable source. He said that it was in the terms of the contract that MS charged based on "the number of machines",and not "the number of machines running Windows".That is what was reported for Oregon.Still trying it on, then. So long as some people don't actually read the contracts they're signing, MS will continue with such ploys.
Rob -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html