Hi Jim,

I hear what you're saying, but something about the wording gives me this nagging feeling that Microsoft is about to whip another layer of charges on us.

Right now if I develop a solution that requires SQL Server when I deploy it, it's the customer's issue. They need to have (pay for) SQL Server. But this wording seems to be suggesting that Microsoft is sneaking some other kind of charge into the picture. They're talking about developers paying for something in order to deploy.

I am 99% convinced that the big gorilla is baiting people with all this beta involvement and hype, and they're just now beginning to drop the other shoe ... oh ... by the way ... if you want anything to work in production ... you have to pay for this and that also.

Someone please tell me I'm wrong.

Guy


>Guy,
>
>I believe that sentence is referring to the fact that teh server licenses that will be included with .NET will be for development only and not for redistribution. Meaing if you develop an application that requires one of the servers then you would need to acquire a license for that server for the location where the application is ultimately used (your server license with .NET is only for your development work).