June 28, 2011 at 7:19 am
Ninja's_RGR'us (6/28/2011)
Just my 0.02$... MS decided that 1 GB ram and 4 GB data was what they were prepared to give for free.
10Gb data in SQL Express 2008 R2, as mentioned earlier.
June 28, 2011 at 7:23 am
paul.knibbs (6/28/2011)
Ninja's_RGR'us (6/28/2011)
Just my 0.02$... MS decided that 1 GB ram and 4 GB data was what they were prepared to give for free.10Gb data in SQL Express 2008 R2, as mentioned earlier.
This is sql 2k5 forum ;-).
June 28, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Ninja's_RGR'us (6/28/2011)
paul.knibbs (6/28/2011)
Ninja's_RGR'us (6/28/2011)
Just my 0.02$... MS decided that 1 GB ram and 4 GB data was what they were prepared to give for free.10Gb data in SQL Express 2008 R2, as mentioned earlier.
This is sql 2k5 forum ;-).
My fault, I did ask them to get me a copy of the R2 license, he's just responding really to my minor derail here.
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
June 28, 2011 at 12:54 pm
paul.knibbs (6/28/2011)
I have a 64-bit R2 Express install on my PC here. Just checked it out, and found the following files:License_SqlBrowser.txt
license_SQLCMD.txt
License_SQLNCLI_ENU.txt (one of these in both Program Files (x86) and in Program Files)
License_SqlPolicies.txt
license_SQLWriter.txt
None of these seem to contain any information about limits on database usage.
Thanks Paul. I don't believe any of those are the file I was thinking of. Back to my research.
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
June 29, 2011 at 10:49 am
I do believe that Craig is right. In the file License_EXPR_ENU.txt from 2005 Express it states:
4. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not
* disclose the results of any benchmark tests of the software, other than the Microsoft .NET Framework (see separate term above), to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval;
* work around any technical limitations in the software;
I think that pretty much says it all...
June 29, 2011 at 11:00 am
Robert L. Jones-330863 (6/29/2011)
I do believe that Craig is right. In the file License_EXPR_ENU.txt from 2005 Express it states:4. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not
* disclose the results of any benchmark tests of the software, other than the Microsoft .NET Framework (see separate term above), to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval;
* work around any technical limitations in the software;
I think that pretty much says it all...
I found the eulas for 2008 and R2 and there's no change to that rule...
R2 link. Pick language in middle right of the page and search for "SCOPE OF LICENSE" in the document.
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/express/redistregisterR2.aspx
June 29, 2011 at 11:03 am
Robert L. Jones-330863 (6/29/2011)
...You may not...* work around any technical limitations in the software;
This isn't a new thing for Microsoft. This kind of language is pretty standard for most software programs.
June 29, 2011 at 11:17 am
Robert L. Jones-330863 (6/29/2011)
I do believe that Craig is right. In the file License_EXPR_ENU.txt from 2005 Express it states:4. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not
* disclose the results of any benchmark tests of the software, other than the Microsoft .NET Framework (see separate term above), to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval;
* work around any technical limitations in the software;
I think that pretty much says it all...
No, actually, it does not say it all.
What it says is highly interpretational - from that language, one could draw just about ANY inference.
I was not proposing getting around limitations in the software, this was a storage issue, for which the software, DOES provide a solution: create another database.
June 29, 2011 at 11:21 am
repicurus (6/29/2011)
Robert L. Jones-330863 (6/29/2011)
I do believe that Craig is right. In the file License_EXPR_ENU.txt from 2005 Express it states:4. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not
* disclose the results of any benchmark tests of the software, other than the Microsoft .NET Framework (see separate term above), to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval;
* work around any technical limitations in the software;
I think that pretty much says it all...
No, actually, it does not say it all.
What it says is highly interpretational - from that language, one could draw just about ANY inference.
I was not proposing getting around limitations in the software, this was a storage issue, for which the software, DOES provide a solution: create another database.
Talk to your lawyer first. You're giving legal advice on a technical forum (as are others at this point). I recommend against that.
Companies get sued out of business over software license violations. Be on the safe and careful side. Talk to a lawyer about it. One who has working knowledge of software licensing issues and case-law.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
June 29, 2011 at 11:24 am
repicurus (6/29/2011)
Robert L. Jones-330863 (6/29/2011)
I do believe that Craig is right. In the file License_EXPR_ENU.txt from 2005 Express it states:4. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not
* disclose the results of any benchmark tests of the software, other than the Microsoft .NET Framework (see separate term above), to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval;
* work around any technical limitations in the software;
I think that pretty much says it all...
No, actually, it does not say it all.
What it says is highly interpretational - from that language, one could draw just about ANY inference.
I was not proposing getting around limitations in the software, this was a storage issue, for which the software, DOES provide a solution: create another database.
How's this for a thought? Call Microsoft and ask to talk to their lawyers. Ask them what they think that means.
If not, if you actually want to take the chance of creating multiple dbs to house the data of one db, that's your choice. I do advise preparing for a lot of CYA in case Microsoft disagrees and decides to bring the hammer down on you and your employer. People have been fired for less. And the fines can bankrupt you.
June 29, 2011 at 11:25 am
[not a lawer, barely above moron level, you should not listen to me, this is not advice, think for your own darn self... blah blah blah]
... which goes AROUND the 4 GB limit since it's for the same application, same data. That phrasing is clear enough yet vague enough to cover most bases in court.
You could make a very shaky case in court by saying you wanted to archive something outside your application for very occasional events. But then you'd be screwed by the time you went to a 3rd DB or 2nd instance or whatever when you hit 4 GBs again.
The real bottom line is are you willing to waste maybe a couple weeks programming to avoid footing a 2-3K bill? Not cost efficient in my case.
[SET genius IQ back on]
June 29, 2011 at 11:37 am
GSquared (6/29/2011)
repicurus (6/29/2011)
Robert L. Jones-330863 (6/29/2011)
I do believe that Craig is right. In the file License_EXPR_ENU.txt from 2005 Express it states:4. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not
* disclose the results of any benchmark tests of the software, other than the Microsoft .NET Framework (see separate term above), to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval;
* work around any technical limitations in the software;
I think that pretty much says it all...
No, actually, it does not say it all.
What it says is highly interpretational - from that language, one could draw just about ANY inference.
I was not proposing getting around limitations in the software, this was a storage issue, for which the software, DOES provide a solution: create another database.
Talk to your lawyer first. You're giving legal advice on a technical forum (as are others at this point). I recommend against that.
Companies get sued out of business over software license violations. Be on the safe and careful side. Talk to a lawyer about it. One who has working knowledge of software licensing issues and case-law.
I gave NO legal advice whatsoever - I'm honestly not sure how you could derived such a conclusion.
There was NO action taken that would result in any legal standing; this is just hypothetical banter at this point.
As I recall, Craig raised the legal issue, not me.
I was trying in good faith to help someone and proceeded to get jumped on for what, exactly?
Neither you, nor Craig, have been able to point to specific restrictions that prohibit what I specifically suggested.
Kindly read exactly what I suggested and then honestly tell me if you think that implies any sort of violation.
And that is all I asked for because I do NOT want to give bad advice to anyone, sir.
And I'm still patiently waiting for that clarification or proof...
So, let me propose what I think is just a frightfully brilliant idea.
Perhaps one of the resident experts here could ASK someone at Microsoft or an MVP?
Thank You.
June 29, 2011 at 11:45 am
You're already talking to a few mvps here and some who could just be nominated if they started their own blog and posted once / week for a few months.
Nobody jumped on you. We're pointing out that in this context what you said "could" be construed as legal advice so it's better to make darn clear that this is not the case.
You think it's safe to make a 2nd db. Most of us disagree.
Next step is to call Ms and see what they think, because bottom line this is what matters most.
... Time for a work break from ssc :w00t:.
June 29, 2011 at 11:45 am
repicurus (6/29/2011)
I gave NO legal advice whatsoever - I'm honestly not sure how you could derived such a conclusion.
By telling us that this wasn't a license violation and open to interpretation, that could be (by U.S. law) be construed as giving legal advice, should someone choose to sue you over it. (FYI: My brother used to be a business lawyer.)
repicurus (6/29/2011)
Perhaps one of the resident experts here could ASK someone at Microsoft or an MVP?
If one person disagrees with you, it's an opinion. But you have 4 resident experts telling you it's a bad idea and we all think it's a license violation. If you still don't believe us, I'll be more than happy to bring in the others (who are also MVPs) on this conversation. But I can promise you will just hear more of what we're saying.
Don't reply to my post yet. Hold on for a few while I post a link in another thread and give them a hollar.
EDIT: Hollar posted. We should be seeing additional eyes on this thread shortly.
June 29, 2011 at 11:55 am
You are interpretting a legally binding contract, saying that it does or does not apply to specific or general plans of action with regard to building and deploying software solutions associated with that contract.
Your suggestions about splitting data across databases in order to remain de facto compliant with the software license, is, in fact, advice on the subject of a legally binding contract. Hence, it is legal advice.
If it weren't for the contract, and limitations built into the software in order to enforce that contract, there would be no need to implement the solutions you have advised. If there were technical limitations based on primary limits of the software (not ones added to comply with a contract, ones that the developers of the software had not solved technically), that would be one thing. But the idea of splitting data into multiple databases in order to get around the size limit of the databases, is very much a legal compliance issue. Saying it isn't is at best mistaken, and borders on disingenuity.
I'm not attacking you in any way. I'm merely pointing out that, it's better to check advice on legal requirements with someone who specializes in that field. If you are yourself an Intellectual Properties lawyer, then your advice is exactly what's needed. If you aren't, then your advice on the subject is just as suspect as my advice would be.
I'd give the same kind of warning if I found a lawyer or doctor or whatever giving advice on database architecture, et al.
It's possible your advised solution is completely legally okay. I don't know. It doesn't appear so from reading the contract, but I'm not an expert on that. I suspect, neither are you. That's my whole point.
So, please stop taking this personally, and please stop being so deliberately insulting and rude. It's unprofessional on your part.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 60 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply