Spla Vs. Enterprise Agreement

• Reduced exposure SPLA audits involve a historical review that often multiplies the variances calculated for a month of audit by the number of months of analysis (often 36 months or more, depending on when an APL was first signed and the last review). In addition, SPLA calculations are generally based on a 25% mark-up on the list prices allowed by the terms of the agreement. In addition, if the products in question are licensed when granting a volume license as part of an Enterprise Agreement registration with a true-up mechanism, it may be possible to resolve them with the next true-up and not as unexpected expenses related to the revision. Under this exception, you can rely on the “self-hosted” ISV exception available under volume license, as a service provider for all authorized applications that are your own corporate IP (not authorized by another 3rd party). If you want to use eligible Azure services as part of your “customer solution”, you can purchase Azure through your own volume licensing agreement and license the application layer through SPLA for all user-based applications subject to the Online Terms of Service (OST), Product Terms, and Service Provider Usage Rights (SPUR). Many companies that find that “commercial hosting rights” must be purchased in combination with solutions hosted with Microsoft software have two options to acquire them: through a License Agreement Agreement (SPLA) service with Microsoft or the self-hosted Application (SHA) benefit included in Software Assurance as part of an enterprise agreement or other volume licensing agreement. . . .

Categorised in: Uncategorized

|