Mark Minasi's Tech Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
JamesNT

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 142
Reply with quote  #1 
Gotta potential client.  Here's the situation.

2 node VMWare failover cluster.  14 Windows Server virtual machines total.  Only 5 copies of Windows Server 2012 R2 standard owned by the client.

Four Terminal servers.  Total of 160 users.  Only 20 CALS owned by the client.

Only 15 Windows Server CALS.

Client has no interest whatsoever in doing anything about this at all.

Do I work with this client or walk away?

JamesNT

__________________
I miss Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 4.
0
cj_berlin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 246
Reply with quote  #2 
My opinion: If the work you are being hired to do is either interesting or lucrative, have the client sign a notice stating that she is aware of the deficit in licensing and of potential millions in damages that it may entail, that she has been duly informed by you about said deficit and that she assumes the full responsibility for whatever damage this will cause to the business.

If the work is neither very challenging technically nor very lucrative economically, just walk away. Chances are you avoid having the discussion about your product (i.e. work done for the client) being as unworthy to be rewarded as microsoft's.

__________________
Evgenij Smirnov

My personal blog (German): http://www.it-pro-berlin.de/
My stuff on PSGallery: https://www.powershellgallery.com/profiles/it-pro-berlin.de/
0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 546
Reply with quote  #3 
A contract that breaks a law is not legal. So you have to decide if the contract that you signed or will sign breaks any laws. If it's a basic contract that says that JamesNT will maintain their network for so many dollars per hour, it doesn't break any laws. The clause that CJ recommended possibly absolves you but it also shows that you had knowledge, of the "deficit" or should we call it an "illegality".   "Deficit" is a nice choice of words. A "deficit" is not necessarily illegal but an "illegality" is.
0
donoli

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 546
Reply with quote  #4 
Sorry for the duplicate post. I don't know how that happened.
0
JamesNT

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 142
Reply with quote  #5 
We need to stand up four more virtual machines the client does not have licenses for.  I've thought about saying we can't stand up any more VM's until two copies of 2016 Datacenter are purchased (that will cover server licensing but not CALS).

Opinion?

James

__________________
I miss Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 4.
0
cj_berlin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 246
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesNT
We need to stand up four more virtual machines the client does not have licenses for.  I've thought about saying we can't stand up any more VM's until two copies of 2016 Datacenter are purchased (that will cover server licensing but not CALS).

Opinion?

James


Well, in this case I would say exactly that. If it were about ongoing maintenance of the stuf that's already in place, I would probably risk going with an 'absolution' clause but if you need to install more OSEs you would be personally violating the use rights so well, no can do here.

If 2x Datacenter is too expensive, the (prospective) client could put in another virtualization host, just for 'your' VMs, and stick 2x Standard to it which would cover the four VMs but leave her with the licensing 'illegality' she has now.

__________________
Evgenij Smirnov

My personal blog (German): http://www.it-pro-berlin.de/
My stuff on PSGallery: https://www.powershellgallery.com/profiles/it-pro-berlin.de/
0
KingAlPal

Avatar / Picture

New Friend (or an Old Friend who Built a New Account)
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #7 
Clients like that usually skimp on everything and end up being a complete nightmare to support. Add that to their insistence that you abet their illegal use of software, and I'm not sure they're worth whatever they're paying you. I'd say walk away. If they're someone who could be hugely influential with other clients, walking away is still probably the best option, but you'll need a strategy to deal with the fallout.

I feel for you! Been there, and didn't enjoy it.
0
cspanburgh

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #8 
All great points.   As partners or MVPs we risk a great deal with clients.

And the fact is:  MSFT does have lots of free stuff.   Ok no free OS.  

__________________
Curt Spanburgh
0
wobble_wobble

Avatar / Picture

Associate Troublemaker Apprentice
Registered:
Posts: 836
Reply with quote  #9 
James

Is this a per issue job,X per month or Y per year?
If its X or Y add in some FU money.
If at the end of the year the customer is good - drop some of the FU money into licensing - if the customer is bad keep the FU money.

If after 18 months your still there - move some infrastructure to Azure - licensing issues for some issues will be a CFO problem and not yours.


I agree with all the other comments by the way.
Cheap assed customers get ransonware 4 times a year - but thats chargeable!

__________________
Have you tried turning it off and walking away? The next person can fix it!

New to the forum? Read this
0
Mark

Hacked Mark's Facebook Account
Registered:
Posts: 273
Reply with quote  #10 
James, you seem to ATTRACT these kinds of clients.  [smile]  Maybe you need a new customer dating service?
__________________
May I ask that everyone please populate the first name and last name in your user account profile.  Thanks!
0
JamesNT

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 142
Reply with quote  #11 
Good news, everyone.  The customer has agreed to purchase two copies of Windows Server 2016 Datacenter Edition.  And since the customer has a two node VMWare cluster, this takes care of all licensing concerns with the exception of Terminal Server and Windows Server CALS.  Since 2016 RDS enforces per user licensing, the CAL situation will resolve itself once moved over to 2016 RDS.

JamesNT

__________________
I miss Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 4.
0
cj_berlin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 246
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesNT
Good news, everyone.  The customer has agreed to purchase two copies of Windows Server 2016 Datacenter Edition.


Maybe she reads here on the Forum sometimes [wink]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesNT
Since 2016 RDS enforces per user licensing, the CAL situation will resolve itself once moved over to 2016 RDS.


How so?
First: the premise of the first statement is not true, you can do Device CALs with 2016 just like you used to with the previous versions.
Second: Even so, you still need CALs AND RDS CALs, whatever licensing mode you choose.

__________________
Evgenij Smirnov

My personal blog (German): http://www.it-pro-berlin.de/
My stuff on PSGallery: https://www.powershellgallery.com/profiles/it-pro-berlin.de/
0
JamesNT

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 142
Reply with quote  #13 
Evgenij,

Why is it that every time you and I discuss something on this forum I end up spending half my weekend drinking something with your name on it?  

Anyway, Device CALS will not be efficient to maintain.  The RDS users are clients, not employees.  Also, it was explained to the client that Windows Server CALS must be purchased in tandem with RDS CALS.  I know, not true, but just a tiny fib.

JamesNT

__________________
I miss Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 4.
0
JamesNT

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 142
Reply with quote  #14 
Well, the day of reckoning has arrived.  A few weeks ago, this client got a letter from Microsoft asking for an audit.

So, after purchasing two copies of Datacenter server, the client also had to purchase:

* 130 Windows Server 2016 RDS CALS
* 140 Windows Server 2016 CALS

Just over $21,000 in software licensing.  For the year, $32,000 in software.  And that's just to be compliant with everything in use.

JamesNT

__________________
I miss Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 4.
0
cspanburgh

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #15 
The client "Ate" the Hamburger!!!!!!!
Now pay the check.


I've had my share of business owners who "Do not WANT to understand" Software.

I had one business owner call me on my cell. 
This was in Southern California.   The place that is burning now.

The VAR I worked for did a Microsoft Dynamics Great Plains deployment for him.

He calls me up and ask me the following question.   " I just brought Great Plains, I don't understand why I have to by Windows Server and a computer to run it on".

Now , a question like that makes me want to call the "Rubbermaid Hotel" and take this guy into one of the rooms so he can bounce off the walls for a while. 

But with patience, I explained things to him.   Frankly, I feel he was lying. 

__________________
Curt Spanburgh
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.