Re: [Wg-test-framework] Question re Windows VM Licensing : Answer

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian,

do you want me to go back to Steve and ask for clarification? It appears
to me that MS really wants these questions to go away. It seems they have
not been particularly helpful (in the same way as I found that when I
talked to a licensing expert)

On 10/06/2015 11:52, "Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Lars Kurth writes ("Question re Windows VM Licensing : Answer"):
>> is what has been suggested a workable approach? I suppose what this
>>translates to is that everyone who performs sysadmin work on the live
>>Test Lab would basically need to be covered by an MSDN license. However,
>>for other situations, such as downloading logs etc, that would not be
>>needed.
>
>I don't think is is.  At least,
>
>> From: Steve Westmoreland
>><swestmoreland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:swestmoreland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>rg>>
>...
>> -This sounds like a big test dev environment? If that holds true, MSDN
>>for every developer touching and using the software is all that is
>>required.
>
>I don't know what "touching and using the software" precisely means.

This is not clear: agreed. However, Steve asked me upfront which type of
things we are doing and I covered the examples below. So I was hoping that
this was specifically discussed.

>Here are some relevant activities:
>
>1. Many people contribute patches to osstest which are put into
>   production.

If everyone who submitted patches to osstest, would require a license that
would be clearly unacceptable. By the same token, you could argue that
everyone who submits patches to anything in the software stack that is
installed would "touch" the software and thus require a MSDN license. This
clearly can't be the intention here.

Also, because we have committers, it is not clear whether someone who
submits a patch and the one who actually applies it "touches" it. It may
be that if we have a license for all our committers that is sufficient.

>2. We want a wide range of community members to be able to submit
>   test jobs (perhaps via some kind of web UI).

This, I would class as a user (of the Test Lab) activity and thus "QA,
testing and end users access for testing is not an issue."

>3. A less wide range of community members will be given login access to
>   the colo so that they can run tests on machines in the production
>   instance.  This is going to be relevant, for example, if we have a
>   host-specific bug.

OK.

>Both (2) and (3) might involve the user causing a Windows VM to be
>created.  In (2) the user would be able to see the logs from that VM
>including screenshots from its virtual display; in (3) the user would
>be able to directly interact with the VM via VNC, or run debugging
>tools against it.
>
>osstest is fairly distributed and loosely coupled, so the limit to
>"osstest administrators" (ie, those who organise the production CI
>loop tests) is not really sensible.

OK. I can try again, but the most likely outcome is that we won't get a
clear answer.

>
>Sorry,
>Ian.

_______________________________________________
Wg-test-framework mailing list
Wg-test-framework@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wg-test-framework