< Back to LISTSERV archives

LICENSING@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU


View:

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

[

|

Previous Message

|

Next Message

|

]

:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LICENSING Home

LICENSING Home

LICENSING  2001

LICENSING 2001

Subject:

Re: Microsoft Licensing

From:

mknox {Marg Knox} <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The EDUCAUSE Software Licensing Issues Constituent Group Listserv <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:55:16 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (130 lines)

(caveat, UT is under an Enterprise Agreement thru the next fiscal year, but
I always watch CA agreement discussions. Here is my list of issues as I have
read CA 3.0 and discussed it offline with some of you)

Student Worker: I think the student worker part has been part of CA since
inception. I know we discussed the student worker part in a recent Educause
licensing meeting; the fact that student workers should be no more than /3
but are /2 was raised. We also talked about the fact that you count them
only if you do not have the student option. And the iPeds numbers I see
include a item for student workers.

HOWEVER, I think that since it is not explicit in CA 2.0 online material
cited in thread makes for a good starting point!! Nor do I think MS could
come back and claim any of you owe past money.

At a minimum, I think ALL part time staff should be /3 and not /2. An then
also try to argue for not including (knowledge) students workers at all.

Home Use: The current rule makes no sense to me. I have read the FAQ and
still was not impressed. Home use rules are clear  and all products in the
program should be included. I MIGHT be able to understand excluding the OS
upgrade if one makes the assumption that all home machines are shared with
non eligible people. But frankly, that falls under the home use provision.
The MS counter argument that it is difficult to undo if the person resigns,
retires, etc just does not win me over.

Hospitals: These are now excluded and are a major concern for some folks. I
understand the rationale MS provides that they want extended hospital
systems excluded (many university hospitals now have relationships with
large health systems. But the language could be clarified to nail it down to
true teaching hospitals of the university. A related issue is that hospitals
are truly 7/24 and the same workstations will be used by all shifts, so
perhaps using the FTE count is not quite appropriate.

CALS: I have not dived into this one yet (much) but there is the new
sharepoint CAL (is it in BO cals) and also what to do about the change that
has occurred with SQL server. MS has moved more towards the processor model
and away from the CAL model.

Licenses in: Many of us, when entering a CA, have existing paid up licenses
that are current. I feel that when one exits a CA, those licenses you
entered with that were covered under the CA, should exit the CA with their
upgrades intact. In essence, for owned licenses covered in the CA, the CA
should act as the equivalent of Software Assurance.

Pricing: What is the comparison of CA pricing with Software Assurance; is
there a relationship? Is CA too high when looked at in this light?

Who we buy from: As I understand it, unlike Select agreements, there are TWO
entities between the campus and Microsoft: a distributor and an AER. Just
adds cost to us, frankly. Why not "go direct" to a MS web site and buy this
product and shave off a few percent.

Student media: I do not get this! Only having permanent media for students
for Office and Front Page is odd to me. I know one has to occasionally
re-insert the OS disk (and Office disks, etc) when one does certain
reconfigurations. I'd rather the student have the media, especially since
once they leave the university, it becomes more work to remember they were
legible for the xyz version...

10% cap: As I understand it, CA's have a 10% cap on raising the prices year
to year. This is probably why there is a "renewing" price for faculty/staff
portion, but the rule should also apply to student rates for the same
product set.  Also, here in Texas, most of the resellers never went to CA
2.0 student pricing, but stuck with CA 1.0 student pricing. For a large
school, this means the ERP price for students was $15 this last year. Not
the $19 in CA 2.0. Hmmm

Select: I know this item is NOT CA, but the change to no longer have upgrade
pricing is really difficult for us to calculate the impact. One analyst says
that it will be a savings if you upgrade every two years but more costly if
you are on a 4 year upgrade schedule. We are not that organized, things get
upgraded when a professor etc decides to upgrade. I think this is a big
issue, the removal of upgrade pricing and the transition to Software
Assurance. I understand that MS has extended the deadline to be current
until perhaps February and that they may allow Windows 2000 to be considered
"current" for a spring upgrade (even though XP should be out in Oct)... But
these are what I read in the press...


I am sure there are more issues, but these spring to my mind. Again, since I
am not under CA, you folks may be able to tell me some of my concerns are
moot. I'll conclude by saying that I think it is in the interests of schools
to have comprehensive agreements on such fundamental products such as OS
upgrades, Office, etc (I also add anti-virus into the mix). Things we want
ubiquitous. So finding a way to do this affordably for all (knowledge)
workers and students is useful in may ways for us.

_____________________________________
Margaret Knox         [log in to unmask]
Associate Director    (512)475-9300/224
COM 7                 (512) 475-9282 fax
Information Technology Services (ITS)
The University of Texas at Austin



-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Hutchison [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 8:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LICENSING] Microsoft Licensing


At 05:56 PM 7/10/01 -0700, you wrote:
>I've read at least one other email in this round where someone else
>thought that student employees weren't part of the Fac/Staff FTE count in
>Campus Agreement 2.  For those of you with Campus Agreement 1 or 2, did
>you include Student employees in your Faculty Staff FTE count?  Did I just
>miss something that big during my review of Campus Agreement 2?


http://www.microsoft.com/education/license/campus.asp
Selected departments entered into Campus Agreement 2 during this calendar
year.  We calculated FTEs as documented in the Overview document at the
above URL (which provides the formula for calculating FTEs based on numbers
reported by the institution on the IPEDS report).  The IPEDS report does
not include casual hourly student employees.  We worked closely with our
Microsoft campus representative and asked many specific questions
throughout the process.  It was not our understanding - nor his - that
casual hourly student employees should be included under agreement 2.



******************
Linda J. Hutchison  - Interim Associate Director
Office of Academic Information Technologies
291 Durham Center               Ph:    515-294-5290
Iowa State University           FAX:   515-294-1717
Ames, IA 50011-2251             Email: [log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Join or Leave LICENSING

Join or Leave LICENSING


Archives

2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2