Software migration from CC3 to 'a' another provider

[AndrewC]

I have a question from a consortia of schools in relation to software licensing and on their behalf looking for advice.

 

They are moving away from CC3s networks to a Vanilla based platform but have encountered confusion from RM that they would need to re-purchase all of their software including Office, RM Maths etc...?

 

Can this be dictated or are the reasons to why these licences are not owned by the school?

[AngryTechnician]

For some resold software, such as RM Virus Protect (actually Symantec Antivirus), this is true and is in the licence terms.

 

For Office, it almost certainly isn't true. I think Microsoft might have something to say about this, so I will point someone this way and see if they would like to comment.

 

As for other RM software such as RM Maths, Colour Magic, etc, I'm not convinced. If it was, I think RM would have told me when I rang them to cancel my CC3 support contracts due to going vanilla. I even explicitly asked them about things like this since we still use the RM SmartCache.

Edited June 8, 2011 by AngryTechnician

[morganw]

I had it confirmed to me that any Select licenses purchased from them (so all of our Office 2003 / 2007 licenses) were invalid after moving away from CC3. It's sold under their own Select agreement and as such you aren't permitted to install it anymore. After pushing a bit further they said that it's only valid on pre-installed RM hardware or when installed from a CC3 server. I them decided that I was installing it from an old CC3 server that I had joined to the new domain - according to my account manager this is good enough. When we didn't renew contracts they didn't mention any license issues, this all happened about 3 months afterwards and we couldn't afford to re-buy it all again.

[Boredguy]

Surely moving from CC3 to any other provider would not affect seperate applications such as RM Maths etc since it has nothing to do with the platform license.

[morganw]

Yes, as far as I know everything else is fine - it's just that RM will sell you Microsoft licensing on their own Agreement which is only valid when using their platform.

[AngryTechnician]

RM will sell you Microsoft licensing on their own Agreement which is only valid when using their platform.

This is the bit I'm dubious about - what's special about their agreement that ties it to their largely unrelated CC3 product?

 

Tim Bush (MS Education Marketing Manager) has got back to me on Twitter that he will try to get to the bottom of this from his end tomorrow. I suspect he will update here directly; if not, I'll pass on his response.

[morganw]

It is on their sales documentation /quotes if you read the small print. The biggest problem seems to be that they aren't making people aware of this until you try to leave or have left.

[AndrewC]

Love the small print, fingers crossed there's an amicable solution round this as enough budgeting around cuts is hard enough let alone being told to re-purchase what they already have!

[Boredguy]

From a logical point of view, moving from CC3 to another network solution does not mean you have stop using other products that you have paid for.

The license agreement for Office would be seperate from either your CC3 or CC4 station licensing, and you would imagine that as the select license is for your establishment it would remain yours.

They are just a reseller of MS licenses, the same as hundreds of other suppliers and I can't say I remember any such clause in our Select paperwork when we started to use one of our other suppliers, but I am glad we're now looking as the EES licensing scheme now.

[AndrewC]

EES is very cost effective when replacing a significant quantity of equipment at the same time :-)

[Essexboy]

Hi All

 

I've just heard that a primary school that had a cc4 network now has to re purchase software like clicker 5 as RM sold under some form of oem license

 

I contacted cricksoft and they agreed that RM do this but don't let the schools know or as mentioned small print

 

So as per one of the posts if they keep the server on site and just link it to the new server then I see no reason to have to buy anything again.

[bodminman]

This is shocking from RM and something that I feel needs to be investigated further.

[russdev]

To quote the rm website.

 

Microsoft RM-Select Licences

 

RM holds a Microsoft Select Agreement for Schools and can sell licences under this, providing that RM install the software through one of the methods below:

 

Pre-installation on hardware - when software is preinstalled on a PC, laptop or Tablet PC

Installation over a Connect network - when an RM installation pack is used, such as the Office Application Libraries or Other Curriculum Choice packs

Installation by an RM installation engineer

To obtain further advice on whether the RM-Select Agreement will work for your school, please call RM Sales on 08450 700 300

[AngryTechnician]

Yeah, and then right underneath that it says:

 

Right to run software indefinitely as this is a perpetual licence.

 

Misleading a little?

[AndrewC]

Here is a response from Microsoft received:

 

 

"Schools own the licenses under Select, and don't have to buy them again, so moving away from CC3/4 will not impact on the validity of any perpetual licensing. If schools are licensed under the RM schools agreement then again, moving away from CC3/4 has no impact - but the school will continue to need to pay annual subscription via RM, or another reseller, if they want to continue using the software.

 

So in summary schools do not need to buy again if they are using select licences."

 

 

So a lit more clarity on this and handy to know, hopefully those looking into such systems will find this useful and procure licences directly from an OEM partner or any VL agreement (naace for example) where it doesn't tie any relations to one partner

[AndrewC]

in reference to my previous post i would like to thank Paul Levett of Levett Consultancy for helping resolve this as well as contributing members to edugeek - it has saved a lot of hassle for many, many schools.

 

Here is a response from Microsoft received:

 

 

"Schools own the licenses under Select, and don't have to buy them again, so moving away from CC3/4 will not impact on the validity of any perpetual licensing. If schools are licensed under the RM schools agreement then again, moving away from CC3/4 has no impact - but the school will continue to need to pay annual subscription via RM, or another reseller, if they want to continue using the software.

 

So in summary schools do not need to buy again if they are using select licences."

 

 

So a lit more clarity on this and handy to know, hopefully those looking into such systems will find this useful and procure licences directly from an OEM partner or any VL agreement (naace for example) where it doesn't tie any relations to one partner

[Butuz]

Yes they have tried to pull that one on schools in my LEA moving from CC3 to LEA Vanilla network. Luckily our LEA have been working on several projects with Microsoft directly over the last 6 months and went straight to the horses mouth.

 

The answer was as above. Any select licences purchased through RM are owned by the school and the school can choose to use them on any network.

 

I imagine the only possible exception to the above, is if you have leased the licences from RM and have not finished paying for them yet. In which case theoretically RM own the licences until the final lease payment is made or the lease is settled early.

 

Personally I think Microsoft should be taking RM to task on the issue - for every 1 school that queries it on edugeek there are probably 50 elsewhere that just rolled over and bought all new licencees when they didnt need to. This makes me sick and MS need to do something about it.

 

Butuz

Edited June 16, 2011 by Butuz

[brooker101]

Perhaps this is why so many people are moving away from RM CC3 and are not choosing to upgrade to the extremely expensive CC4. Much better alternatives in the market these days than RM in my opinion, what do you think Andrew C ?