OnLive in Trouble for Violating Microsoft's Windows License?
Microsoft is reportedly working with OnLive to clear up any possible licensing violations that may be occuring with using OnLive Desktop.
There's no question that streaming a hosted Windows 7 environment to an iPad or Android tablet is a cool thing, especially when it comes packed with pre-installed Office apps. But now there's talk that OnLive may not have acquired the appropriate licenses to provide a Desktop-as-a-Service (DaaS) environment on tablets using Microsoft's products.
On February 29, Gartner said that OnLive Desktop and its premium variants may present Microsoft licensing risks for organizations if consumers install the product on company iPads or use it to edit company documents from personal devices. Even more, neither Microsoft nor OnLive has provided clear instructions on how users must comply with Microsoft licensing requirements.
"Using a Windows desktop through hosted virtual desktop (HVD) requires careful licensing that often includes additional products, fees or Software Assurance," the report states. "Further, Microsoft often requires service providers to license products they provide through a Service Provider License Agreement (SPLA) with monthly payments for devices running the software."
As per Microsoft's virtualization licensing policy, providing access to Windows 7 and Office products in this type of a virtual environment requires the end user (OnLive Desktop subscribers) to have valid license keys for all available products.
Gartner said that OnLive has not disclosed how it is complying with Microsoft licensing, and that if Microsoft were to conclude that OnLive is misusing its products, the Redmond company "could potentially take action against OnLive that could affect OnLive's ability to service clients." There's also potential for Microsoft to hold both OnLive and OnLive Desktop users accountable for any potential mislicensing.
After Gartner's report, Microsoft's corporate vice president of worldwide licensing and pricing Joe Matz said on Thursday in a blog that the company is "actively engaged with OnLive with the hope of bringing them into a properly licensed scenario," adding that Microsoft is committed to seeing that the licensing issue is resolved.
"Our licensing terms provide clarity and consistency for our partners, ensure a quality experience for end customers using Windows across a variety of devices, and protect our intellectual property," he states. "It’s important to us and to our partners that we’re serious about issues of compliance."
OnLive will likely announce a new licensing deal with Microsoft that will allow users to continue to use OnLive Desktop and the premium versions. However there's also a good chance that users will see an increase in price, and possibly a monthly charge for the currently free OnLive Desktop Basic version.
We reached out to OnLive for a comment, but basically received a "no comment" statement in return. "We have never commented on any licensing agreements," a spokesperson said in an email.
well, they're not Apple, after all.
well, they're not Apple, after all.
I'm not! I'd rather MS sue the hell out of OnLive, that company's services are disgusting, I can't stand cloud computing and streaming games/desktops. Thoughtless waste of network bandwidth.
this sounds pretty bogus if it's just a remote way of running the machine.
seems like an excessive way for microsoft to collect fees for peripherals that are not dependent on their system to operate
lol, you have to think of this.
lets say the license price was 100
lets say onlive effed up,
now microsoft has 2 options, sue them for 500
or negotiate a license price of between 100-499
you see, looking at this cynically, you see an over all GREAT profit that can be made here by not going to court, but having court and a lost cause as a threat.
that said, its VERY big of microsoft to not go the court route, because either way they are probably paying the same in legal fees regardless of the result, and they could probably get more out of them in court too...
but than again i cant see onlive as having a crap ton of extra money. so maybe court would be worse.
I imagine they have some form of pre-negotiated VLK deal with Microsoft, Being a business.
The other licensing method in practice is "per processor". That would maybe help in this case, however being (a lot) more expensive.
Anyway, my personal opinion is that current licenses are nothing else but schemes to rake in more money from customers. Thing is that they work pretty well for the corporations and nobody bothers contesting them. Hek, it;s THEIR software, even if it's on YOUR computer - right?
This case is not a matter of CAL or Per Processor Licensing. That will be the case for the actual server infrastructure licenses needed to run this service. For someone to use Windows as a service through virtual desktop, they have to use VDA and VDI licenses, or have active Software Assurance as the article says. In both cases, the licenses are not perpetual and need renewal every 1(VDA/VDI) or 2 - 3 (SA) years.
My work involves a lot of consulting on Microsoft Licensing and I can honestly say that their system is chaotic... A lot of customers and sometimes MS themselves don't have a clear idea of what a certain customer has to pay for in a certain scenario. That said, OnLive is not any random customer... They should have consulted lisencing specialists from Microsoft before going through with this.
Microsoft had no reason to sue them right away. Their general view in cases like this is that the customer is "mislicensed" and just needs to comply.
There is no way he could have said this with a straight face.
if they sue onlive, msft will loose more revenue. imagine having another licensing stream from onlive desktop users.
lets hope they all will find a win-win scenario (and also not to have ridiculous pricing as a result)
There is no way he could have said this with a straight face.
I can't even read it with a straight face