Wsus Accept All License Agreement

“Do not use WSUS to distribute updates to client computers that are not licensed to your organization. The WSUS License Agreement expressly prohibits this. In fact, this question has been asked several times over the course of several years. When people ask for a link to the actual license agreement, none are offered. See this link for an example: How are we supposed to track MS licenses if MS licensees can`t understand it either? lol So basically it`s not even a question of *WSUS* license, it`s a question of *Windows* license. For a Windows system to access a Windows server, the licensee of that Windows Server installation must have a CAL for that client system. The fact that it uses WSUS is actually irrelevant at all. It is quite clear that the language of the EULA is vague. It`s also clear that Microsoft licensing experts (employees) don`t always agree on how to interpret their own license agreements. In fact, we can accept the adapted update directly using the IUpdate.AcceptLicenseAgrement method. We understand the logic behind the opinions published here. That is what we are doing.

But we need concrete evidence for our client. If there is no license agreement to refer to, we cannot convince the customer that they need to revise their plan. To make matters worse, the Microsoft licensing experts (personal) we spoke to don`t even agree on the requirements. I have the same problem, I tried resetting wsusutil but it doesn`t work. I try to run the following script copied from TechNet. When I do this, it works exactly as it should, but it doesn`t allow updates with license agreements that must be accepted. Is there a way to add approval of the software license terms to the script so that all updates can be approved? WSUS is a feature of the Windows Server product and therefore requires a valid Windows Server license for the computer that hosts the service. Because users` workstations authenticate to WSUS to retrieve their updates requires the purchase of a Client Access License (CAL) for each workstation that connects to the WSUS service. [6] The File Server CAL for WSUS is the same as that required to connect to a Microsoft Active Directory, file server, and print server, and must be purchased only once for a device or user. I think this is a limitation of the API itself, in which case PowerShell would not be able to accept the BOARD.C.A. AL5575, Which link did you download out of curiosity? If this is my WSUS module that you downloaded from Technet, there is a known issue with the Approve-WSUSUpdate command that fails with licenses. I recommend downloading my latest version (2.1.1) Codeplex. But there is no place in the script where I decide to accept C.C.A. Often, EULAs cannot be downloaded because a device – proxy/web filter/firewall – blocks the download of TXT files. Verify that you can upload TXT files to the WSUS server, and then run the wsusutil reset so that the WSUS server queues download requests for missing EULUs again. According to my previous comments, Microsoft`s position is that we should get a connector license and CLIENT Access Licenses to allow updates to be deployed properly. We are challenging the requirement for CALs, and the whole issue is still under investigation. In our case, no amount of money is exchanged, no resale, etc. There are many websites that use a private network without access to the Internet and use the software system that we have developed and managed. Since all participants have licensed copies of Microsoft software, there is no risk of hacking for Microsoft. Optionally, you can use Microsoft SQL Server Standard Edition for the WSUS database.

In this case, WSUS is deployed on a single Windows instance, using the SQL Server standard licensed on the Windows AMI. All license costs are added to your monthly AWS bill. We have been in contact with specialists in commercial and federal Microsoft licensing and have still not solved the problem. The last suggestion is that we get an external connector license as an alternative to CALs. ?? I saw: I see where someone offered to get an SPLA (Service Provider License Agreement). This program allows a participant to distribute software and be billed monthly by Microsoft for licenses sold. Since there are no fees for the provision of services/updates, there should be no financial obligation for the distribution of updates. If you want to deploy updates to computers licensed to another organization, you must obtain a service provider license agreement through your MICROSOFT TAM, as you have read. I have no idea what the SPLA requirements for WSUS might or might not be. In this context, pontificating on old discussions and publishing generally accepted principles is a good read, but it does not begin to solve the problem.

if it exists. In this case, confirm that acceptance of the license agreement would not work. I wrote a Powershell script that approved all security and critical updates between the date using the Approve-wsusUpdate cmdlet on PS4 and WSUS 2012R2. OK I have already seen this topic, but is it necessary to accept the CLA or is it possible to list the update soloist who must accept THE EULA? As far as I know, we cannot accept CLA with approve-wsusUpdate. I will then change my guesswork about the rules of automatic succession; I think it`s just a problem that the indiscriminate adoption of the CJEU on the console was not acceptable. See: (v-vs.85) .aspx On a network that uses Samba Active Directory, you do not need to purchase CALs to connect to the domain controller or a Samba file server. .