Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Question 1) and 2) were moved into separate thread Which Windows remote connections bypass LSA? and what r definitions of login vs. logon session?

3)

Do I understand correctly that multiple remote RDP sessions are supported by Windows XP but require additional (or modified) licensing?

Which one?

Or it is always illegal to run multiple RDP sessions on Windows XP? even through non-MS commercial software?

----------

Update1:

I already understood my error - the main questions were about definitions (important to find the common language with others) and the licensing questions were collateral - but it was already answered.

I shall try to separate these questions leaving here the questions about RDp licensing and migrating other questions into separate thread

----------

Update2:

Trying to "work around" licensing terms is pointless and wasteful of time

I never try "working around" and I never ask anything like this, I am not specialist in licensing. My clients/employers provide me with tools and licensing support. They have corporate lawyers, planning/accounting/purchase departments for these issues.

The questions that I ask is the matter of scalability and efficiency (saving my and others time) in my developing work.

For ex., Just because I need autentication against Windows AD it is time-saving to use ADAM instead of deploying full-fledged AD with DC + servers + whatever else?

Nobody is forcing you to use Windows XP

I shall not rush into re-installing all my operating systems on all my development machines (at home, at client premises) just because a few guys have a lot of fun downvoting development-related questions in serverfault.com. If I do so, I make a joker from me in the eyes of my clolleagues et al

Update:
I unmarked this question as answered since it had not even adressed the question, at least mine.

Should I understand that Terminal Server PRO, allowing Windows® XP and Windows® Small Business Server 2003 to host multiple remote desktop sessions, is illegal?

Related:
My answer to question Has windows XP support multiple remote login session (RDP) at a time?

share|improve this question
1  
I edited to remove the argumentative stuff from the question, which you've put back. You've also ignored my answer pointing out that the legal issues should be addressed with a local legally qualified person but that what you're asking is against the EULA. That's your prerogative, of course, but at this point I'm forced to conclude you are more interested in an argument than a discussion. Voting to close. –  RobM Jan 29 '11 at 17:03
1  
I think you are arguing because your not getting the answer you want to get. Robert and Even gave you answers that I think fit fine. It appears that you want to argue your points to us and theres really no point for that. It is possible to do, but its not recommended as it breaks the EULA and if you download the patch you have no idea what your getting with it. Flagged. –  Jacob Jan 29 '11 at 17:42
add comment

closed as not constructive by RobM, Iain, Ben Pilbrow, Jason Berg, Evan Anderson Jan 30 '11 at 4:37

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

2 Answers

I share the annoyance that a lot of Server Fault members share for these "dickering" questions about software license agreements. Arguing about technicalities is futile because, frankly, the legal venue you'd be placed into to defend your infringing use of software isn't going to be welcoming to such arugments.

The End User License Agreement (EULA) for Windows XP should be your first stop for licensing questions re: Windows XP (on my box, it's in %SystemRoot%\System32\EULA.txt). If you can't get an answer from there, then Microsoft should be your next stop.

  • The EULA calls out specific "services" offered by the operating system as being subject to a 10 client connection limit, including "File and Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services)." The license goes further to say "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." Setting aside your concern re: "authentication", which isn't mentioned in this text at all, these clauses seem to limit the usefulness of providing any kind of "Server" services using a Windows XP computer. Dickering about authenticated versus unauthenticated use is pointless, since the license clearly says that you can't use it as a server for more than 10 clients for some particular protocols, or as a server for any clients that, themselves, aren't licensed to use Windows XP, for any other protocols.

  • In Microsoft parlance "Interactive" means interacting with the Windows user interface. Your access to the Microsoft SQL Server software, web applications through IIS, and shared folders on remote computers are all not considered "interactive". Those activities create logon sessions, but not interactive logon sessions. Again, this dickering about technical terms is pointless-- the license tells you what's allowed.

  • The operating system supports one interactive user at a time. If you modify the operating system (by introducing "hacked" libraries, or libraries from other versions of Microsoft operating systems) you're violating the terms of the license. The license says "You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Product, except and only to the extent that it is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation." Presumably, hacking the operating system's code to permit more simultaneous RDP connections that the bits originally shipped from Microsoft entails some reverse engineering, which isn't allowed.

Trying to "work around" licensing terms is pointless and wasteful of time. The professional systems administration community here is downvoting you and being disdainful of your answers because, frankly, no professional would attempt to work around license agreements for their employers or Customers. We wouldn't put ourselves in a situation of potential personal liability, nor would we betray the trust of our employers or Customers and put them in such a situation.

End User License Agreements are written, purposefully, to be vague. They're not written to be vague for your benefit. The fact that you're trying to exploit such vagaries yourself betrays a lot about your thinking. Most of us here, when we see someone like yourself questioning little technical details about a software license, assume (rightly, often) that you're trying to use the product in a manner that doesn't comply with the license agreement.

Think about the "clever argument" your attorney might try to make to a judge about skirting product license agreements by trying to play with technicalities. The opposing attorney will make a very plain-and-simple argument: "The defendant is stealing our product." Odds are, frankly, the simple argument will win out. You don't have the money to out-litigate Microsoft, so you'd do well by your employer or Customers to play by the rules and leave "creative" thinking about license agreements and how you can eek out a little more "value" from your dollar for your home network.

Nobody is forcing you to use Windows XP. If you don't like the terms of the license talk to Microsoft about it. If they won't negotiate with you then you're free to go look for another product with a license more favorable to your needs or desires.

share|improve this answer
    
See Update1 and Update2 in my original question-post. –  Gennady Vanin Novosibirsk Aug 13 '10 at 6:21
    
My Windows XP Pro SP3 does not contain %SystemRoot%\System32\EULA.txt. What does it mean? –  Gennady Vanin Novosibirsk Aug 13 '10 at 8:27
    
@vgv8, Different versions of Windows have the EULA in different places. This MS Page will display the license terms for any of their products: microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/UseTerms/… –  Chris S Aug 13 '10 at 14:36
add comment

*Should I understand that Terminal Server PRO, allowing Windows® XP and Windows® Small Business Server 2003 to host multiple remote desktop sessions, is illegal? *

Is it illegal? That's something you'd need to ask Microsoft and/or your legal advisor. I believe it would go against the terms of the Microsoft EULA to use it for Windows XP, yes, but your local laws may make some parts of the EULA invalid and this is why you really need legal advice from a qualified legal professional who is familiar with your locality to be sure. Anything else is just people spouting opinion, which is nice but isn't anything you can rely on.

XP Pro supports one terminal server session, I believe, which is essentially aimed at remote admin and/or the user accessing their own computer remotely.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.