Microsoft: 'Large majority' of customers won't be affected by Windows Server 2016 licensing plans

Most customers will have 'more cores than they need' insists vendor

Microsoft has hit back at criticisms of its new licensing plans for Windows Server 2016 - which will feature a per-core, as opposed to per-socket, model - insisting "the large majority of customers will not be affected" by changes.

Responding by email to a scathing analysis of the pending changes by Texas law firm Scott & Scott, Microsoft has - according to Scott & Scott - insisted that only a "very small customer segment" would be affected by licensing shifts, and any issues would be far from significant.

The law firm's January report claimed that Microsoft's changes would make licensing compliance more complicated, potentially giving rise to a higher level of auditing from Microsoft.

It also suggested that Microsoft Software Assurance - the vendor's software deployment and management service - customers might also face a "confusing transition period" that will muddy the waters when trying to work out how much licensing they'll still own if and when the Software Assurance contract expires.

Finally, Scott & Scott estimated that organisations already starting a switch to systems with more cores may be hit with heavier costs as the model changes.

While Microsoft said in its December 2015 document explaining the changes that it would provide "options to support customers in the transition" by "granting licenses in situations where Windows Server 2016 or System Center 2016 is running on or managing services with more than 8 cores per proc[ess]", this rather vague statement is unlikely to reassure many heavy users.

Microsoft's basic outline for licensing is that each processor will now need to be licensed with a "minimum of [eight] cores" in the form of four "two-core packs".

This means one physical server, including those with only one processor, will need to be covered with licences for a minimum of 16 cores - i.e. two of these eight-core "packs" - and two processors.

Additional cores, says Microsoft, "can then be licensed in increments of two cores for gradual increases in core density growth".

The plans, which the vendor insists customers "should be excited about", seem mostly geared around an increasing use of cloud infrastructure among the customer base.

Microsoft's response to Scott & Scott's report insists that the "large majority of customers" will be unaffected, as they will be taking "the standard default migration grant" (i.e. that default 16-core, two-processor option), which will provide them "more cores than they need".

As for increased complexity, Microsoft insists that moving licences from processors to "physical cores will actually simplify and evolve Microsoft's Windows Server licensing", calling the new interpretation a "common core currency" for all kinds of deployment across cloud, on-premise or hybrid.

Meanwhile, it insists that Windows Server Datacenter will provide "unlimited virtualisation rights" for cloud, and will in fact save money for many customers.

If customers are in doubt, it might still be best to follow up on the company's promises that it is "working with customers to facilitate smooth transitions" to Windows Server 2016, and that those who are confused should "contact their Microsoft representative for guidance related to their specific situation".