Access 2000 run-time license

[Guest]

Hi,

I'm having issues convincing someone that the Office 2000 developer license
is required to utilize the Office 2000 run-time. Based on another post it
sounds like the 2003 Developer extensions license can be used to cover for
the use of the 2000 run-time. Is that correct? I'm also not having a lot of
luck getting a copy of the portion of EULA that says this from Microsoft. The
applicable emails aren't readable and I've told them that and they insist on
sending them in the unreadable format anyway. :-(

Can someone please paste the appropriate license text or provide a working
Microsoft link?

Thanks
Mark

 

[Ken Snell [MVP]]

2003 developer extensions apply only to ACCESS 2003. To use 2000 runtime,
you'll need 2000 Developer extensions.

 

[Guest]

I'm thinking in terms of licensing. With the Access 2000 Developer edition
being difficult to impossible to acquire at this point and the fact that I
have at least one customer with an NT4 computer (and she is likely to have it
for another year or more) I'm trying to prove what it takes to be legal, and
I'm sure that is the Office 2000 Developer. If the 2003 devloper license
(Visual Studio for Office?) will cover it that makes it a lot easier. I doubt
the purchasing department where I work will be able to purchase Office 2000
Developer from the sources that would have it. Plus I need to be able to
prove the need.

With IS politics in my work and business managers that don't get it, Visual
Studio or anything else is out, I'm stuck in Access.

Mark

 

[Ken Snell [MVP]]

What is the reason you cannot use 2003 developer extensions in Visual Studio
to load a 2003 runtime version on the PC? You can convert a 2000 database to
2003 database and then run it on the 2003 runtime.

Perhaps some more details about your predicament?

--

Ken Snell
<MS ACCESS MVP>

 

[Guest]

My predicament is an IS department that won't let me have Access 2003 or
anything more recent or 'better' than Access 2000. They recently replaced a
group of PCs with full versions of Access 2000 for PCs with Access 2000
run-time. Since I don't have the developers version that's a problem. I can't
convince them that the 2000 Developer edition is required for licensing
reasons.

The only reason I bring up 2003 at all is another post made mention that one
type of office license allows rights for use of run-times for previous
versions. Whether the person is right or not I don't know.

I'm hoping I can use this as some leverage to get the upgrade to 2003 and my
one NT4 user upgraded to Win 2K or XP.

Mark

 

[Rick Brandt]

My predicament is an IS department that won't let me have Access 2003
or anything more recent or 'better' than Access 2000. They recently
replaced a group of PCs with full versions of Access 2000 for PCs
with Access 2000 run-time. Since I don't have the developers version
that's a problem. I can't convince them that the 2000 Developer
edition is required for licensing reasons.

How exactly did they install replacement PCs that have the 2000 Runtime
already on them? If they have the runtime because it came with Office
(Small Business Edition) then I think your OK on licensing. If not then
*Someone* installed the runtime. How exactly did they do that without the
developer's edition?

 

[Guest]

In a large organization someone, somewhere has something. The exact history
of the origin of the run-time installer predates my working for the
organization.

I'm guessing that what you may be getting at is, if there is a run-time
somewhere in the organization are licenses and I should give up on this track
of getting a better a tool.

Mark

 

[Ken Snell [MVP]]

Being concerned about software legality is a worthwhile thing. However, I
think your effort to use this approach as a "wedge" for getting a software
upgrade is destined to fail, based on my experiences with IS groups.

 

[Guest]

Hi,

I'm having issues convincing someone that the Office 2000 developer license
is required to utilize the Office 2000 run-time. Based on another post it
sounds like the 2003 Developer extensions license can be used to cover for
the use of the 2000 run-time. Is that correct? I'm also not having a lot of
luck getting a copy of the portion of EULA that says this from Microsoft. The
applicable emails aren't readable and I've told them that and they insist on
sending them in the unreadable format anyway. :-(

Can someone please paste the appropriate license text or provide a working
Microsoft link?

Thanks
Mark

 

[Alp Bekisoglu]

I might be wrong, but, as far as I know (or AFAIK as they put it now) if an
end user is provided with an Access application which was developed
utilizing Acceess Developer Edition (or other names have popped up with
newer ones) and has provided the runtime version, I do not think the user
needs a licence to run it since the developer has alrady been charged for
the distribution rights when he/she purchased the ODE (Office Developer
Edition). Otherwise it wouldn't make any senese.

But yet, this is just an opinion. Thanks to uncertainties of Microsoft and
the legal jargon.

Alp