3 ms·
All Windows servers on Azure already have to have "Software assurance". The license T&C for the last few years have been fairly clear you need to pay for softwa
by Dayshine 7y ago
All Windows servers on Azure already have to have "Software assurance". The license T&C for the last few years have been fairly clear you need to pay for software assurance to cloud host.
Are they not simply closing the loophole where direct customers are paying more?
- Spooky23 7y agoThe "loophole" was that you could license a specific host in AWS or GCP and use the "outsourcing" provision to use existing perpetual licenses on that host. My understanding is that now you cannot do that with specific providers. But, if "Spooky23 Outsourcing Services, LLC" rents you a server, you can, but you cannot do it on AWS. I don't think that AWS/GCP guarantee that you are on a specific host for any period of time, and I think that in many scenarios, you cannot move Windows Server workloads more than once in any 30-day period. I think Microsoft's position is that customers on these platforms are likely breaking that rule. That said, those same rules apply to ESX and HyperV, and Microsoft doesn't blacklist vMotion because it can violate an agreement. Many people see these sorts of actions as a part of a pattern where Microsoft is leveraging the existing license rights to drive Azure. That's how they are providing Windows Server 2008 extended security updates as well.