About this article: AI-assisted writing, reviewed against the cited sources. This is source research, not lab validation. Check the stated versions and your own requirements before making changes.
Create a licence responsibility record for each installed product. Name the supplier of the entitlement, the applicable agreement, the deployment it permits and the party responsible for records and reporting. Your application subscription, the hosting contract and Microsoft's use rights are separate parts of the answer.
A commercial contract can allocate responsibilities, but it cannot create rights that the underlying software licence does not grant. Do not assume that owning a volume licence permits every hosting arrangement, or that a provider supplies Windows, SQL Server or remote-access rights merely because it supplies the virtual machine.
Begin with the installed products and access pattern
List the application, operating system, database, runtime dependencies and any desktop applications or remote-access components. Record versions and editions, the environments where they run and who uses them. Include testing and recovery arrangements as questions for the licensing review rather than assuming production rights cover them automatically.
Then describe how the customer receives the service. A browser-only application, published Windows application and full remote desktop can have different software dependencies and access requirements. Avoid starting with a generic label such as “SaaS licences included” when the actual product stack is unknown.
Our recommended register is:
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Product | Installed edition/version and relevant components |
| Entitlement supplier | Customer, ISV or hosting provider |
| Programme/agreement | Exact agreement and applicable current terms |
| Deployment | Dedicated/shared resources, provider and location |
| Access | Users/devices and how they reach the software |
| Evidence owner | Who holds records and handles reporting or verification |
| Change trigger | Migration, scale, edition, access or supplier change |
The register is an operational aid. It does not replace a product-specific licence assessment.
Distinguish included hosting from customer-owned rights
Microsoft's SPLA overview describes eligible products licensed monthly by service providers and software development companies for hosted services. It directs providers to the Services Provider Use Rights (SPUR). The overview also describes subscriber and other licensing models; the applicable product terms determine which model is available.
That does not establish that your host is an SPLA participant or that every product is included in its quote. Ask the supplier to identify the programme, product coverage, access coverage and relevant exclusions in writing. If the ISV rather than the infrastructure supplier provides the licensed service, document that chain explicitly.
For customer-owned rights, use the terms applicable to that customer's actual agreement. Microsoft's EA/EAS universal software terms impose conditions on outsourced use and define eligible arrangements. Do not apply that programme view universally or treat the words “bring your own licence” as approval of a deployment.
Check remote applications as well as desktops
Microsoft's RDS CAL guidance covers remote sessions for desktops or applications. Publishing a RemoteApp does not make remote-access licensing irrelevant.
The CAL documentation is not a complete service-provider licensing guide. Confirm the applicable CAL or service-provider subscriber-access arrangement under the relevant programme. Do not substitute one entitlement for another based only on similar names, and check any separately installed Office or other application rights.
If users access only a web application, describe that actual architecture to the licensing adviser. Do not add or remove licence requirements merely from the marketing name of the service.
Avoid gaps and double charging
Consider an illustrative ISV offering a hosted accounting application. The application subscription is supplied by the ISV, the infrastructure supplier says Windows is included, and the customer asks to use an existing SQL Server entitlement. This is a made-up planning example, not a statement about any provider.
The ISV should obtain written confirmation of the included Windows coverage, then have the SQL entitlement assessed for the exact deployment and access model. It should not assume that the customer's purchase record, or a clause saying “customer supplies SQL”, is sufficient evidence of eligibility.
If the SQL entitlement is unsuitable, the parties need a valid alternative before deployment. If the provider already supplies it, the customer should understand what is included before paying for a duplicate arrangement. Record the decision and its supporting terms instead of leaving it in a sales conversation.
Put useful detail in the order documents
Our recommendation is to specify which party supplies each listed software entitlement, what the price includes, what remains the customer's responsibility and how changes are assessed. Keep the technical deployment description consistent with the commercial document.
Agree how the parties exchange the records needed for reporting or verification. That may involve access counts, installation inventory or other programme-specific measures. Do not invent a universal reporting basis; obtain the requirement from the actual agreement.
For customer exit, confirm which rights remain with the customer and which service-provided rights end. A copied virtual disk does not by itself transfer the licences needed to run its software elsewhere. Review the destination arrangement before promising a portable, fully licensed image.
Reassess when the deployment changes
Use the register during changes to the host, shared/dedicated arrangement, virtual resources, product edition, user access, recovery design or supplier chain. A previous answer may depend on facts that no longer hold.
Have a named owner close unresolved questions before commercial commitments or production use. The record should show the question, the evidence consulted, the qualified decision and any limit. “Confirmed by an adviser for this deployment” is more precise than a broad assurance that a product is always licensed in a particular way.
Software vendor hosting is the relevant service area for discussing the deployment. No NetLeverage programme participation, included product, price or licensing guarantee is asserted here.
Sources and limits
- Microsoft: Licensing options for service providers, accessed 14 November 2026; applicable SPUR and agreement must be checked separately.
- Microsoft Product Terms: Universal software terms, EA/EAS view, accessed 14 November 2026; programme-specific scope.
- Microsoft: RDS client access licences, accessed 14 November 2026; remote desktop and application access.
This is a source-researched responsibility checklist, not legal advice, a licence entitlement decision or a core-count calculation. Product terms and agreements can change. Obtain qualified advice for the actual arrangement before acting.
Learning notes
The party paying for software and the party permitted to use it are not interchangeable concepts. Check hosting and access rights separately, including published applications. Keep responsibility assignments tied to the actual programme and deployment.
This article was originally published on .