text:
- The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
- Deleted Nick O'Demus
Please do not remove my merge template. The existence of this page is sheer speculation and belongs elsewhere. 188.8.131.52 05:12, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
It is a canocial article backed up by several sources. Do not add the merge template again. Jayden Matthews 11:47, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
One source that just says "Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix" is not "several sources". I will be disscussing this with an admin. 18.104.22.168 06:18, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
Three sources actually. can't you count? Jayden Matthews 09:43, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
Can't you? Look at the "Notes and Refrences" section. 126.96.36.199 00:39, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
While this curse did not kill Sirius Black, an unidentified lethal curse did kill Bellatrix Lestrange. I say this article stays, but without the reference to Sirius Black. He died, because he fell through the Veil. --Hcoknhoj 00:59, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
- That also works. I'll remove refrences to Sirius Black. 18.104.22.168 02:16, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
I really don't beleave that it's another curse, it's the same stupefy but when bellatrix and molly did it they felt to much angry and made the spell more powerfull.
- There is now a seperate article for the curst that killed sirius. Also, please sign your comments with four ~s. 184.108.40.206 02:40, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
- The curse exists regardless of whether or not it was responsible for his death. We don't know if it was the veil or the curse that kills Black, but the way the scene is written implies that he was fatally wounded before he fell through. As the effects of the curse are identicle to the one that Molly uses, I say we keep them the same for the time being, so, I'm reverting your changes. –K.A.J•T•C•E• 11:10, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
- How is it similar to Molly's curse? Laughter and smiling are two very different things. 184.108.40.206 02:08, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
Unidentified Knockback curse
Ok thats wrong i'll repeat it againg. It's Not a new spell or curse, it's the same spell (Stupefy) But when the people that make it,they where so angry that make the spell more puwerfull. bellatrix hate him so much in that moment, because sirius was laughing about her. He recived the bolt and it was so powerfull that he was thrown out and go through the veil. And when molly used, she was very angry because bellatrix killed her son and pretended to kill ginny. In this case bellatrix recived the bolt in his chest that produced a heart attack.
- What? No! 184.108.40.206 03:02, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
- We don't have enough information to confirm that the curse that Bellatrix used is a stunning spell. I am going to put a Candidate for deletion tag on this, because we already have the page Unidentified lethal curse that covers this information. QuidditchLover(My talk)(contribs) 05:26, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Not the same curse. However, you could merge them, but make sure this is identified on the page as a different curse. 22.214.171.124 05:37, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
- And why isn't it the same one? There are countless similarities between the two curses. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 12:21, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
No. The Antonin Dolohov's curse it's totally different. Sirius recived a red light, but hermione recived a purple light with a slashing movement and the effect's are different. Yes we don't have enough information to confirm that is the stunning spell, But how can you say that is another curse?. As we know he recived a red light, how many spells exist that produce a red light? Just sutpefy and expelliarmus, but expelliarmus disarm the opponent's wand, and don't push him away, not enough to go through the veil. And exist two articles about the same "new spell" just with different words.
I wasn't saying Dolohov's curse is the same. I was just using it as an example for why this curse should have only one article. And the curse is orange, not red. –K.A.J•T•C•E• 17:38, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Just because the Disarming and Stupefy spells are the only red light spells we know of, it doesn´t mean there aren´t more.--Rodolphus 17:40, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
No, The curse is red not orange. Read the book if you don't believe me. Agreed, you should delete this article. Of course there are more spells, but they are only the spells that carry out with the description.
The color of the curse is not described in the book. It is shown in the video game to be orange. –K.A.J•T•C•E• 19:48, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Give me a good reason why its the same curse that Bella used. 184.108.40.206 00:44, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
- They had exactly the same effects:
- "The laughter had not quite died from his face, but his eyes widened in shock."
- —Sirius's death[src]
- "Molly's curse soared beneath Bellatrix's outsretched arm and hit her squarely in the chest, directly over her heart. Bellatrix's gloating smile froze, her eyes seemed to bulge [...] "
- —Bellatrix's death[src]
- Besides, this article is all wrong, as Sirius wasn't pushed into his death in the Veil: he was already dead and merely fell into it (OP - chapter 35). If no one gives contrary evidence, this article is to be deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 01:24, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
- See, sirius was still laughing when he died. Belatrix only smiled. An YOU have to give contarary evidence for this article to be deleted. 18.104.22.168 02:06, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
- The smiling/laughing part is irrelevant; the relevant part is that upon being hit with the curse both had became very shocked (note the references to their eyes widening) and both bodies toppled a few seconds later. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 02:23, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
- The bulging part is irrelevent. You would be shocked too if you suddenly were knocked back. And the laughing part is very relevent. You can't laugh if you're heart stops. 22.214.171.124 03:52, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
- The laughing part is irrelevant because that's what they were doing before being hit with the curse, they didn't laugh/smile as a consequence of the curse. Also, Rowling never once says he was knocked back (in fact she uses "fell" and "toppled"). Also Sirius didn't continue laughing after being hit; his mocking froze, just like Bellatrix smile did before both collapsed a few seconds later. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 13:26, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
- It did not freeze. Other wise it would say something like "Sirius stopped laughing" instead of what is there. Do not delete the article until this is settled. 188.8.131.52 00:57, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
- "The laughter had not quite died from his face." (added emphasis). With this Rowling is talking about Sirius's facial expression, not of his previous loud laughter. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 01:05, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
- No, it means that he's still laughing. We're keeping this article until further evidence. 184.108.40.206 17:59, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
You have failed to provide any evidence to support your claim whatsoever, whereas I have done so. Should I delete the article then? -- Seth Cooper owl post! 18:33, January 9, 2010 (UTC)´
Yes, you should.--Rodolphus 18:37, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. This article is complete farceity. –K.A.J•T•C•E• 18:42, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
I suppose this may be more of a general question than ought be posed here, but does anyone have any idea what it is about this curse that makes it -not- one of the three unforgivable curses? If it's lethal, I don't see why it's any more forgivable than Avada Kedavra-- at least with Avada Kedavra, the death is instant and doesn't give the victim a chance to be shocked about their impending doom... I guess I'm also just wondering, generally, about the classification of curses like this one. --Emmy (★) 00:06, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I can only speculate, but I would guess that the curse isn't necessarily lethal. it probably just disrupts or impedes whatever part of the body it comes into contact with, and as Sirius and Bellatrix were both struck in the heart, they died. That's just my theory though. As for classification, I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate? Jayden Matthews 11:57, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that more or less makes sense, I though it might be something like that too. Which is why I'm wondering why this called unidentified "lethal" curse; if it can be used non-lethally, than the name seems inaccurate. If it can't, however, then that really still begs the question of why it's not unforgivable. Two different issues, haha, I know, but still, I don't think we should assume this curse is an assuredly lethal one. --Emmy (★) 12:26, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, like I said, that's just my guess. We only know of two cases where the curse was used, and both times it produced lethal results. As to why it's not "unforgivable" - who knows. It's only ever been used non-verbally before, so maybe it was developed without the knowledge or consent of the Ministry, like Snape's Sectumpempra. Jayden Matthews 12:54, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
When did Molly use it? I never remember that. I thought she used a killing curse. 126.96.36.199 23:41, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
- I thought so too but apparently it was this. Belabitch did take a few moments to die when the Killing Curse kills you instantly and it happened in the same manner as Sirius.--WarGrowlmon18 23:50, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, how do we know it was this curse, not some other lethal curse? There have to be other curses that kill you, like the curse Antonin used on Hermione. Then there are probably other curses that kill you. 220.127.116.11 00:04, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Sirius was hit with a killing curse, and survived for a while, although Bella was hit in the chest, and Sirius was hit in the arm, possibly he survived because he was just hit in the arm. 22.214.171.124 15:23, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Sirius wasn't hit in the arm, he was hit in the chest, but he was hit with Avada Kedavra, and there is nothing to suggest otherwiswe. Just because his eyes widened in shock it doesn't mean he did not die imediately. If you are shot in the head your eyes will no doubt display shock or pain, but you will still drop dead instantly. In Bellatrix's case the key phrases are her eyes seemed to bulge and for the tiniest space of time. If something seems a certain way then, while it may appear that way, it isn't necessarily the case. And, as has already been pointed out, if she saw the curse comming, then she would have known what had happened. J.K. Rowling does not name the curse that kills Sirius, or describe it. Thefore, the films, as second tier canon may be used to fill the gap. So, according to this wiki's canon policy Sirius was hit with Avada Kedavra. We will have to wait until the final film next year to discover the cause of Bellatrix's death, but no doubt it will be the same as her cousin's and not this imaginary curse. 184.108.40.206 18:14, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- In the movie they used the Killing Curse just because it was easier, there he was dead as he fell into the Veil not because he fell into the Veil. Falling through the Veil alone kills you. Given Harry's reaction in the book to try to save him it wasn't the Killing Curse as Harry would've known for a fact it was too late. It took Remus for him to realize that.--WarGrowlmon18 18:43, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the policy of this wiki is that Sirius was not killed by the Killing Curse. The book basically leaves it open that Sirius was pushed through the Veil by whatever curse Bellatrix hit him with. We honestly have no idea if Molly and Bellatrix both killed with this same unknown curse, but both reacted or appeared to react prior to death. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 18:18, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- The canon policy specifically states that as long as information from the films is not contradicted by the books then it is canon. If you read my above comment carefully, you will see why the book does not rule out Avada Kedavra as Sirius's killer. Futhermore, the image in this article is of Stupefy. I know, as I've played the game. I tell you, this curse does not exist. 220.127.116.11 18:31, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Harry was grieving for Sirius. He would have beleived anything was possible in order for him to still be alive. Furthermore in the book, Bellatrix casts her curse non-verbally, meaning that Harry would not know what curse she used. 188.8.131.52 18:51, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- "Only one pair was still battling, apparently unaware of the new arrival. Harry saw Sirius duck Bellatrix's jet of red light: he was laughing at her. 'Come on, you can do better than that!' he yelled, his voice echoing around the cavernous room. The second jet of light hit him squarely on the chest. The laughter had not quite died from his face, but his eyes widened in shock. Harry released Neville, though he was unaware of doing so. He was jumping down the steps again, pulling out his wand, as Dumbledore, too, turned towards the dais. It seemed to take Sirius an age to fall: his body curved in a graceful arc as he sank backwards through the ragged veil hanging from the arch. Harry saw the look of mingled fear and surprise on his godfather's wasted, once-handsome face as he fell through the ancient doorway and disappeared behind the veil, which fluttered for a moment as though in a high wind, then fell back into place. Harry heard Bellatrix Lestrange's triumphant scream, but knew it meant nothing - Sirius had only just fallen through the archway, he would reappear from the other side any second… But Sirius did not reappear." --BachLynn(Accio!) 19:01, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- The spell, whatever it might have been, that ended Sirius life (and I don't use the word "killed" on purpose; he may have been pushed through the Veil alive) was described as a "second jet of [red] light" (I added the emphasis on the book transcription above). This does rule out the possibility of Avada Kedavra and makes the film an ineligible canon tier on this matter. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 19:11, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- The first jet of light is red, the second is not decribed. 22.214.171.124 19:14, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- That may be (the second light not being described) BUT it says that his eyes "widened" after the curse hit him as he was falling backwards, if the killing curse had hit him his facial features wouldn't change after the curse hit, widened implies that he was still alive after the curse hit, therefore definitely not avada kedavra. --BachLynn(Accio!) 19:17, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- I've already explained this, see my first comment. Muscle reflexes continue to opperate for a short period of time after death. 188.8.131.52 19:22, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, how about this then, you're interpreting JKR's words one way, others interpret it another way, unless JKR has said so there's no way to know if when she wrote "his eyes widened with shock" was an involuntary muscle twitch or that he was still alive and his eyes widened in shock. Personally based on JKR's writing style I have a hard time believing she would take the time to write about involuntary muscle spasms as they don't add anything to the story, but who knows, either way, does not prove it was avada kedavra. --BachLynn(Accio!) 19:28, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, but if the second jet of light wasn't red, Rowling wouldn't have written the second jet of light; she'd have written someting along the lines of another jet of light. By writing "the second", Rowling strongly implied the spell that killed him was the same as the one she had just cast (or, at least, that's what I interpret from that passage). -- Seth Cooper owl post! 19:34, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- But that's my point, it doesn't prove it one way or another. That's what the canon policy is for, which, sadly some people seem happy to ignore when it doesn't support their own views. Furthermore there is no case where Avada Kedavra is described as killing instantly. The spider that Crouch/Moody kills was described as rolling on to it's back instantaneously not dying instantaneously. The force of the curse could have knocked it onto it's back. Another explanation could be that a spider, as a relatively simple organism would die quicker than a human being. Also, Seth, if you cast two jets of light, a red one and a green one, the green one is still a second jet of light. 22.214.171.124 19:43, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt it. It was the caster, not the curse that was significant to Harry. Something else which reinforces my point is Sirius describing his own death as quicker and easier than falling asleep. Doesn't sound like being hit with a curse that "triggered cardiac arrest". Where does that information even come from? A couple of seconds is all it takes for your eyes to "widen in shock". 220.127.116.11 19:56, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- You're probably right about the "second" thingy. It's just it's the way I always had interpreted it. Oh, by the way, despite what it is written in this article I actually see little evidence to suggest that this spell triggers cardiac arrest. As for his death being quicker and easier than falling asleep we don't know whether he's talking about the hypothetical Avada Kedavra/curse or his "death by drapery". -- Seth Cooper owl post! 20:17, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- That's fair enough, at least we're making progress. OK let's sumarise the points we have covered so far.
- Did Sirius die instantly? - Probably. His eyes widening in shock could have been the physical force of the spell, or could have occured post-mortem.
- Was the curse red or green - We don't know. Bellatrix fired at least one red spell at him, but the color of the fatal one is not given.
- Does Avada Kedavra always kill instantly - There is no concreate piece of text that says so, as I've explained above.
Does anyone else have anything to add? 188.8.131.52 20:29, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- I think the curse kills fast given Belabitch's death, also he got pushed through the Veil, that may have been an instant death for anyone going through it.--WarGrowlmon18 21:07, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
Also, Seth, as Harry is directly asking if it was physically painfull it's pretty obvious that Sirius was describing the actuall sensation of dying. If there is a possibillity that the veil caused his death, then the entire premise of this curse being "lethal" is false. 184.108.40.206 20:31, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
There was a test screening for DH, and I think it was confirmed that Moly uses Avada Kedavra. I can´t find a link, however. Can anyone heLp me?--Rodolphus 15:37, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
I propose that we change this to "Unidentified lethal curses" (note the plural), which leaves room in case Molly and Bellatrix used different unidentified curses on their victims. We also incorporate into the article sections on Antonin Dolohov's curse and any other curse we think may result in someone's death other than the Killing Curse. Tell me what you think? --JKoch(Owl Me!) 22:24, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- In general I like the idea, this way we can cut back having half a dozen articles on unidentified curses that can cause death. As far as Sirius's death goes, part of the problem is the vagueness with which JKR writes, as she doesn't come out and specifically say what killed him, it leaves it open for interpretation. No matter what we do there are still going to be people convinced it was the veil that killed him and had nothing to do with the curse, and some that are convinced it was Avada Kedavra. Short of asking JKR herself, I'm not sure what to do canon wise with this situation. --BachLynn(Accio!) 22:49, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Dolohov's curse is distinct, seperate, and unique so merging it would be innapropriate. I've already demonsrated beyond all reasonable doubt that Avada Kedavra was used to kill Sirius. I'm not saying this was Rowling's intentions (there are lots of things that we consider canon that she probably never dreamed of. Alas, the Millenium Bridge) However the way she has written the scene is too vague for us to discern which curse killed him. Therfore we look to the next tier of canon - the film. If you'd just read the canon policy yourself, and attempt to comprehend it you would know this. 188.8.131.52 10:11, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't expect to merge it, but to mention it with the others, as there is distinct information on Dolohov's curse, of course it will keep its own page, but it is an "unidentified lethal curse." Also, if she had intended to kill, Sirius with the Killing Curse, she would have. Also, from his lessons with Moody/Crouch Harry would have know not to expect to see Sirius again. There would have been the "sound of rushing death." If JKR had intended to kill Sirius with the Killing Curse, there would be no debate over it, there would be clear signs (ie actually having Bellatrix shout "Avada Kedavra" in the text). --JKoch(Owl Me!) 13:38, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I've already explained this several times. There are tons of things this wiki considers canon that Rowling probably doesn't. However, by being vague and not stating which curse was used to kill Sirius she opens up the door to the films, which fill the gaps. There is nothing, I repeat nothing within the text that rules out Avada Kedavra as the fatal curse. Therfore, in the eyes of this wiki, it is canon. This is the most basic and fundemental principal of the wiki, and I'm shocked that you, as an administrator of this site do not understand it, despite the fact that I've explained it to you. Also, Bellatrix is known to use Avada Kedavra non-verbally, as she did with the fox. Therefore Harry may not have known which curse she used. Ive explained that before already. Anything else you'd like me to repeat. 220.127.116.11 14:40, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
This article still cannot be deleted, because we still do not know how Molly killed Bellatrix. I find it highly unlikely that she would have used the Killing Curse. Therefore there is still some unknown curse which killed Bellatrix, ergo this article needs to remain. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 18:27, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- "Therefore Harry may not have known which curse she used." After having seen it demonstrated in front of him by "Moody" in the previous year, along with detailed descriptions of its effects? After having watched Cedric Diggory murdered by it, an event he was replaying in his nightmares all summer long?
- Consider these, direct from the book, which pretty well establish that whatever killed Sirius was NOT Avada Kedavra:
- "His eyes widened in shock" (after being hit).
- "Sirius had only just fallen through the archway, he would reappear from the other side any second" (again, Harry knows what the Killing Curse does at this point.)
- "(Harry) Get him, save him, he's only just gone through! (Lupin) It's too late, Harry -" (Saying "it's too late" would imply that there would have been a chance to save him, but it's already stated there is no counterspell to or recovery from the Killing Curse. It wouldn't be "it's too late", it's be "it's no use".)
- "But some part of him realized, even as he fought to break free from Lupin, that Sirius had never kept him waiting before... Sirius had risked everything, always to see Harry, to help him... If Sirius was not reappearing out of that archway when Harry was yelling for him as if his life depended on it, th eonly possible explanation was that he could not come back... That he really was..." (THIS is what finally forces Harry to accept that Sirius is dead, not anything to do with the effects or finality of the Killing Curse, which again he has been fully aware of since GoF, but the simple fact that, for some reason Harry can't explain, Sirius hasn't come back.)
- 22.214.171.124 18:31, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I've already explained the above points very clearly, if you'd bothered to read my full post. I'll repeat myself ... again.
- There is no concreate piece of text which says Avada Kedavra kills instantly (please read my above comments before responding).
- Bellatrix casts the curse non-verbally. Therefore Harry could not have known which spell she used, and there are other spells which create green light. Remember that Sirius fell through the veil, he did not drop dead on the floor. As, such, Harry would not have known the effects of the curse had on Sirius.
- Harry was grieving for crying outloud, he knew Sirius was dead, he just did not want to admit it to himself. Remeber in Philosopher's Stone after seeing his parents in the mirror he is convinced that some form of magic could bring them back. It took Dumbledore to explain that this was not the case.
I'm finding it extremly tedious having to repeat myself every time someone posts on this discussion. So, again, please read the whole conversation before responding with something along the lines of Well, his eyes bulged, so it could'nt have been Avada Kedavra. And Hcoknhoj, there is no more evedince to suggest Bellatrix was killed with a different curse than there is Sirius. 220.127.116.11 21:00, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. As there are multiple spells which produce green light, and Bellatrix did not scream the incantation, how is Harry supposed to know what she used? Actually, no, don't answear that. You'll only repeat yourself, and then I'll have to repeat myself, and so on. God, this is tiresome. The bottom line is - this article is overbearing fanon, and needs to be deleted. 220.127.116.11 21:17, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- "There is no concreate piece of text which says Avada Kedavra kills instantly " - "Instantaneously the spider rolled over onto it's back, unmarked, but unmistakanly dead" (GOF p.216)
- "Therefore Harry could not have known which spell she used" - That's like saying someone wouldn't recognize the sound of a gunshot, after having attended classes on firearms the year before AND watching someone getting blown away right in front of them. And I repeat, he learned about this curse in his 4th year, he watched Cedric murdered before his eyes, and in his 3rd year the effect that Dementors had on him was forcing to relive his mother's death by this curse. Any argument that he can't recognize that green flash, rushing sound, and drop-dead effect by now is fallacious.
- "he knew Sirius was dead, he just did not want to admit it to himself." - And yet, as I already mentioned, the realization and acceptance moments later that he was dead had nothing to do with the stated effects or attributes of the Killing Curse. Reread the paragraph from my previous post.
- Personally, I think it was passing through the veil itself that killed Sirius, rather than the spell he was hit with, but that's my opinion. However, I do think there is enough evidence within the text to say that whatever it was that finally did him in, it was NOT the Killing Curse.
- 126.96.36.199 21:08, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Aaarggg!!! I've already mentioned the spider. The text says it rolled onto it's back instantaneously, not that it died instantaneously. Sirius did not "drop dead", he was pushed through the veil by whatever curse Bellatrix used. If you watch a loved one shot are you going to be wondering Hmmm was that an automatic or a revolver. No, your mind goes blank, and you will conjure up whatever fantasy your mind allows in order to beleve your loved one is still alive. All the evidence you have presented is circumstantial and overeaching, and more importantly based on your opinion. You have not presented anything new, you have just rehashed the same arguments that I have already dissproved about a million times. If you are not going to present any new evidence, please don't bother responding. 184.108.40.206 21:46, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- "All the evidence you have presnted is circumstantial and overeaching, and more importantly based on your opinion." - The majority of your own argument, particularly regarding Harry not recognizing the spell, is no less "circumstantial", "overreaching", or "opinionated".
- "You have not presented anything new" - Ditto.
- "the same arguments that I have already dissproved about a million times." - Just because you think you "disproved" them doesn't mean you have.
- 220.127.116.11 21:55, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I've been forced to repeat myself multiple times because certain individuals refuse to read the entire conversation before posting. The difference is the canon policy of this site supports my arguments. I have very clearly explained why Avada Kedavra could have been used to kill Sirius. The book, unfortunately does not reveal which spell Bellatrix used, so we are forced by the policy of this site to use the next tier of canon - the film. If I have to repeat myself one time I'm going to scream. 220.127.116.11 22:03, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I think we can be sure that Avada Kedavra kills instantly. It's all over the series: Frank Bryce, who "was dead before he hit the floor"; Fawkes during the duel in the Ministry of Magic Atrium, who burst into flames instantly; Charity Burbage, who fell to the table below her immediately after being cursed; Hedwig, who "fell to the floor of the cage"; the goblin Voldemort killed, who "rolled over dead"; and even Voldemort, whose face was already "vacant and unknowing" when he hit the Great Hall floor. In every instance of Avada Kedavra, the victim drops dead immediately. Sirius, on the other hand, took forever to fall, giving time for Harry to run across the room towards him before he fell (with a characteristic facial expression, not with the "vacancy and unknowness" of a victim of Avada Kedavra, I might add). -- Seth Cooper owl post! 22:09, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- It seemed to take Sirius an age to fall. I don't doubt that the curse kills extremely quickly. However, there is no proof that the victim dies the very second the curse touches them. In fact this is definately not the case, as the Riddles had expressions of terror on their faces. Therefore Sirius's eyes bulging is well within the known symptoms of Avada Kedavra. Not that this wasn't a ridiculously circumstantial argument to begin with. 220.127.116.11 22:19, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- "as the Riddles had expressions of terror on their faces" - May also have been due to the presence of the evil, mercilesss, psychopathic wizard intent on killing them rather than the actual curse.
- You're right about one thing though, this discussion is going in circles. The talk page is now 10 times longer than the article itself. 188.8.131.52 22:29, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Remember Voldemort was sixteen at the time. I doubt a sixteen year old could inspire such terror in three full grown adults. It was most definately the curse that caused this. Your right, this is stupid. At the end of the day we have a canon policy for a reason, to plug any holes the books leave. We may not like it, and it may not have been Rowling's intentions, but it is what it is. I'm going to alter the relevant articles, and consequences be damned. 22.214.171.124 22:35, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Still, we have to reach a conclusion or your edits will be reverted anyways (this reminds me of the debate we had whether the Millennium Bridge collapse was canon or not). Again, I think Sirius's death isn't consistent with the other Avada Kedavra deaths. Granted; the narrator says Sirius seemed to have taken an age to fall through the Veil, but he did took some time to actually start falling: from the book, we know Harry had time to jump down all the stone steps between him and the dais and he still managed to see Sirius fall close enough to check his facial expression. Voldemort, on the other hand, took as much time to drop dead as the time the Elder Wand took to fly towards Harry's hand. And let's not even mention Bryce, who died before even touching the ground. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 22:41, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- "I doubt a sixteen year old could inspire such terror in three full grown adults. It was most definately the curse that caused this." - Overreaching? Circumstantial? Opinion? It isn't stated whether Riddle simply walked into the room and slew them all immediately, or whether he wrung some information out of them first. In COS, the Diary Horcrux's incarnation of the 16-year old Riddle makes some comments about his mother and father's relationship that might indicate the latter. 184.108.40.206 22:47, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I can't, I can't discuss this anymore. It's driving me insane. What else is there to cover? I know i've used the "being shot" analogy before, but I will do so again for simplicity's sake. If you are shot in the head you may well stay standing for several seconds before toppling, but you will most certainately be dead. Extremely fast is not the same as instant. 188.8.131.52
- The actual sensation of being hit by the Avada Kedavra curse is felt for the first time ever by Harry in Deathly Hallows, in which he descibes it as feeling as though he's been hit by an "iron-clad punch":
- "Every inch of him ached, and the place where the Killing Curse had hit him felt like the bruise of an iron-clad punch."
- —Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter Thirty-Six (The Flaw in the Plan)
- The thing is; the force of such a strong "punch" would most assuredly push a dead body (or make it bend over forwards, or whatnot) instantly, not taking as much time to topple as Sirius did. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 20:07, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly, Harry said it felt like an iron-clad punch, not that he was punched with an iron-clad fist. Secondly, Sirius wasn't described as toppling. Rowling used the words sank and fell to describe his descent into the veil. Thirdly, you cannot take an indefinative statement like the one about the iron-clad punch and apply it to every case in the books. Previous victims of the curse was said to have dropped, rolled over, fallen, toppled, and, in the case of Voldemort fell backwards. The same goes for the curse killing instantly. Yes, the spider rolled onto it's back instantly, but there is nothing in any of the books that definatively states that the curse kills instantly. I think we can all agree that Avada Kedavra kills it's victims extremely quickly. Maybe instantly, maybe within seconds, maybe less. But that's more than enough time for Sirius's eyes to have bulged, and for his dead or dying body to sink into the veil. The truth is you argument is compiled of "maybe's" and "probably's". There is nothing in canon to back up the existence of this spell, and I believe you are attempting to glean meaning for pieces of text where there is none, and blow them out of proportion to suit your argument. Another good example of inconsistent spell effects would be Expelliarmus! Sometimes the victim is thrown backwards, othertimes they are simply robbed of their wand. I hope we can lay all this tomfoolery to rest, once, and for all, and move on. 184.108.40.206 11:44, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
- I support Hcoknhoj's proposal to rework the article into "Curses". I also think that this is an issue that will not be settled definitively by anything less than Word-of-Rowling, but that there is enough evidence within the book canon to justify keeping the article for the time being. - Nick O'Demus 12:43, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Please explain what this evidence is? That which has not already been discussed, that is. 220.127.116.11 12:45, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
- See any number of the above paragraphs. Furthermore, while the exact cause of death may not have been solidly determined, as has already been stated, there is enough evidence to support the argument that whatever it was that killed Sirius was not Avada Kedavra. Therefore this still creates a contradiction between book canon and film canon, and so the Canon policy still applies. - Nick O'Demus 12:50, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
- You are not listening. All that has been said is a repeated mumbling of his eyes bulged, and it took him a few seconds to fall through the veil. I have countered every argument, and have provided concreate pieces of text from the books, and this site's own canon policy. Please read the entire conversation, starting with the section entitled "Molly". 126.96.36.199 12:57, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
- I have. And while you have offered some good support for your case, your argument has not been as concrete as you seem to believe. You have offered valid reasoning for your case, and others have done the same in equal measure. This is a deadlocked argument which, as I have said, is not likely to be definitively settled by anything less than JKR herself. However, for the time being, there is enough support to justify keeping this article. - Nick O'Demus 13:04, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
- I feel kind of sheepish about all this, as this article is my brain child. Bear with me while I explain a few things. This article originated with a dispute concerning our canon policy, with specific focus on Sirius's death at the hands of Bellatrix. It was agreed that as the film contradicted the book, the Killing Curse could not have been responsible for Sirius's death, and therefore, it must have been another spell. Then the conversation delved into whether or not it was the spell itself, or the veil that killed him. This is where things get a bit murky. We agreed that as Sirius was described as sinking into the veil he must have already been dead or dying. Alas, the "unidentified lethal curse" was born. As for the article itself, I admit, I am largely at fault here, and so, I apologize. The cardiac arrest thing was a natural assumption based on the fact that Sirius and Bellatrix were both struck in the heart. I haven't played the video game myself; I merely looked up that clip on Youtube, and cropped out the image of the spell. Looking back on it now, it does seem a bit hasty. Let's re-examine all the evidence from scratch. Hopefully we will reach a conclusion. As I see it the points that need to be covered are as follows.
- Q 1 - Is the fact that Sirius's eyes "bulged" relevant?
- Q 2 - Is the length of time Sirius took to fall through the veil relevant?
- Q 3 - Is the fact that Harry hoped Sirius would re-emerge relevant?
- Q 4 - Did Rowling describe the curse as a jet of red light?
- A 1 - No, I do not believe so. Anything that feels like an "iron-clad" punch will evoke some reaction.
- A 2 - Again, no. As the anon has pointed out there is no definitive piece of text which claims the curse kills instantly. Furthermore we do not know if Sirius was already dead when he fell through the veil.
- A 3 - No. As Harry was focused on Sirius's facial expression the suggestion that he would make a mental note of which curse Bellatrix used is far-fetched to say the least.
- A 4 - No. She described Bellatrix's first curse as a jet of red light. The second one remains colourless.
Having thoroughly cross-examined all the evidence I have to say that I agree with the article's deletion. There is nothing that conclusively rules out Avada Kedavra as the cause of Sirius's death. Which means that the film ''is'' an eligible canon tier. I also think that the anon has made a very good point about taking things out of context, and using them to support an argument when in fact they do not. I don't think I've missed anything, but if I have feel free to add it on. Jayden Matthews 14:44, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, honestly, Jayden's opinion carries a lot weight, but isn't there still enough ambiguity, especially since we do not know how Molly killed Bellatrix. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 16:44, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Hcoknhoj. But I feel the same arguments that apply to Sirius apply to Bellatrix. Her eyes seemed to bulge, and she fell after the tiniest space of time. I think the best thing to do would be to delete the article for the time being, and wait until Part 2 is realeased. If the film reveals her to have been killed with a curse other than AK then the article can be recreated. Jayden Matthews 16:57, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
- - Not sure if this is a dead issue or not (the last few comments seem to indicate the article should at least be modified), but I'm on the side of "we just don't know." Despite the arguments, it is not definitive either way (whether it was Avada Kedavra or not that killed Sirius). At best, circumstantial evidence (Sirius' eyes widening coupled with the unproven assertion that AK kills instantly and thus does not allow for that to occur) was offered that it must be an unknown curse. But it's FAR from definitive. I would suggest leaving the article but modifying it to leave room for the possibility that it could have been AK (it already suggests that 'cardiac arrest' may have been the COD even though that's not remotely mentioned anywhere in the texts, and should probably be removed as well). Right now, the article specifically states that the curse that killed Sirius was NOT AK and, to put it bluntly, that's not known and certainly not canonical. Stevehim 05:43, January 19, 2011 (UTC)
- - Is there any reason we can't (and shouldn't) add the possibility that it was Avada Kedavra to the Behind the Scenes section, and alter the article to not prclude that possibility? I'll wait a few days for comments before actually editing the (or any) page. Stevehim 00:54, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, the only reason this article exists is because it was commonly beleived that Avada Kedavra couldn't have killed Sirius. As you rightly pointed out, this isn't the case. I think adding information to this article saying that Avada Kedavra could have killed sirius would be self contradicting, and would undermine the purpose of the article. I think the best thing to do is be completely honest. We don't know how Sirius died, and we should say that, which would mean deleting this article completely. Jayden Matthews 11:31, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
- I know I'm new here, but just to confirm, couldn't we put this curse as a possible use of Stupefy Duo? For example, I read earlier in this "talk" that you were debating if the curse was red or orange, on Stupefy Duo's article, it says that it is either orange or red. This spell may be a combination of the Stunning Spell and another curse. I've been reading the article of the lethal curse, and I find it hard to understand. First of all, we don't know whether or not the spell that Molly and Bellatrix used were the same, correct? But if it is, it could be how powerful the wizard is. When Bellatrix shot this spell at Sirius, she was eager to kill Sirius; while Molly was also trying to kill Bellatrix for teasing her and her family, but in this case, she was also trying to protect herself. Doesn't this prove that this spell may just be a variation of a moderate spell? It could have been the Stunning spell, used very forcefully. Now onto if the spell wasn't the same in the two known uses. In the 5th book, it says that Bellatrix hit Sirius on the arm, while Molly hit Bellatrix on the chest, correct? It could be that Bellatrix used a variation of the Killing Curse, while Molly used a forceful, moderate curse on Bellatrix used to forcefully, right? Please answer, please and thank you, 18.104.22.168 21:03, June 21, 2011 (UTC)Dement0r
Hi. I may seem new here, but I've actually been viewing events around this wiki for quite some time. Anyways, it seems that the discussion about whether Sirius was killed by AK has been settled, so shouldn't this article be deleted? Mr. Anon 19:02, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
Now that the trailer for Deathly Hallows, Part 2 has shown Molly using Avada Kedavra, can we please delete this article?
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Sally Hansen Diamond Lip Treatment Reviews
mehit was too sticky, and shiny for me, but my daughter liked it. — 6 years, 3 months agoMissPurple | 611 reviews
This review is: Helpful | Not helpful | Inappropriate | 4 of 8 people said helpful
Shimmery ColorI really like this lip treatment, because it comes in great colors and has an amazing sparkle. I use this when I go out at night for a fancy look. The lip color feels light and not sticky and goes on easy for a shiny look. — 8 years, 4 months agoStef42678 | 500 reviews
This review is: Helpful | Not helpful | Inappropriate | 3 of 8 people said helpful
Love itSmells great, amazing colors, very moisturizing. I will buy more of the colors. — 8 years, 4 months agoelena62 | 169 reviews
This review is: Helpful | Not helpful | Inappropriate | 3 of 7 people said helpful
No need for a lip balmWith this super shimmery and super lovely gloss, I found that I don't use lip balm nearly as much as I used to. I really like that because I've gotten so tired of layering lip products. Also, the colors and packaging of this product are fantastic! — 8 years, 3 months agochanceuxlilas | 326 reviews
This review is: Helpful | Not helpful | Inappropriate | 1 of 2 people said helpful
Sparkling ReviewI realy like this very affordable drug-store lip gloss. Great colors-especially the pinks and mauves and goes on smooth-wet like a gloss shoud but not too heavy and greasy-does not have to be blotted a million times to look like an adult instead of a clown. It is also decent tasting and easy to find. A staple in my lip collection now. — 7 years, 8 months agoOhMandy | 199 reviews
Dry Lips?if you have dry lips try this....its fabby — 8 years, 10 months agofabbymj | 199 reviews
Pretty in PinkI absolute love this product. I even carry it around with me in my purse. It has replaced the "chapstick" that I use to carry. The shades are great and can fit a lot of skin types. This is because the coat can be quite sheer. It also provides moisture to dry or chapped lips which makes lips look fuller. The shiny sparkles are an added touch and bring focus to the lips. The price isn't bad either! This is great to wear out any time day or night! — 4 years, 2 months agorhaewynsmom | 9 reviews
ICKDisgustingly Sticky, maybe something I would have liked when I was ten. — 5 years agonutmeg17 | 21 reviews
Great for a natural looking lip boost!I love this product! I don't think it's sticky at all and it doesn't dry out my lips. I like a more natural look so it's nice to throw this on whether for work, casual, or a night out. LOVE IT! — 5 years, 7 months agostephanie_lewey | 1 reviews
Sally Hansen LipglossI don't think it really moisturizes but it does give amazing color and shine. — 6 years, 2 months agoaguifra14 | 40 reviews
to top
My Reasons for Reporting This

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Dear beloved GRcade denizens,
GRcade is kindly supported by the considerable voluntary time, money and expertise needed to facilitate this community for almost 9 years running. Many people have shared the jobs of running GRcade over the years. Myself I have been directly involved in the current guise GRcade in different ways for at least 7 years. Between us, thousands of manhours have been dedicated to creating an online hub to be proud of and share our passions, even when times are good and bad.
Without the content contributions made freely every hour of every day by our members, GRcade could not exist and would be of no interest to anyone. We enjoy one of the most capable and cutting edge server deployments available for a medium-sized, constantly active online community of video game, tech and entertainment fans, supported by the voluntary contributions of learned and dedicated computer scientists, engineers, web designers, community moderators, content authors and social media managers, those on "staff' and off, currently "on staff" and now resigned to their good selves having served the community above and beyond, in some cases, most reasonable expectations.
While we are supported by a small ad unit for guests only in recent years, this infrequent and irregular revenue only constitutes a small portion of the persistent and substantial running costs required to maintain the high standards you expect from what so many of us call our "home on the Internet', where we gather to convene on all sorts of matters, with some fantastic people we even consider friends. This is because we do not wish to subject anyone to the most intrusive forms of advertising.
For this to continue in the great spirit it has for so long, I ask that you please make a kind financial contribution, however big or small, to help us subsist in our own little corner of the (very fast) Internet. Just £1 from each active member on GRcade would fund our operations for years.
After evaluating the GRcade organisation's accounts, currently a trading name of myself, I have personally covered a running deficit of £181 over the past 12 months, despite facing great financial adversity as a self-employed design professional. This includes this month's bill (January), to our dedicated server provider, OVH t/a SoYouStart, based in France, where we enjoy a stunning low latency operation compared to more economical but slow/substandard hosting elsewhere. If we are able to raise more than the needed target of £181, no individual will be liable for these expensive costs and let it be known that GRcade continues to exist with the contributions, by simply posting every day and/or by making donations, of its passionate members. Both are appreciated equally. Donations are entirely anonymous and are never used as a basis for preferential treatment in GRcade policies.
For full transparency, please see this spreadsheet for the ledger for the past 24 months.
About the GRcade Dedicated Server
- Location: Roubaix, France
Latency: Around 5-7ms
CPU: Intel Xeon W3530 @ 2.80GHz (4 physical and 8 logical cores)
Hard Disk: 2x 2TB
Cooling: Liquid-cooled
Power Supply: 2x 250 kVA 48hr autonomous UPS
OS: Ubuntu Server 14.10 "Utopic Unicorn" (64bit)
Webserver: Nginx with Lightptd, various custom optimisations, PC game servers
Database: MariaDB - 11.28GiB
Current uptime: 8 months 10 days 5 hours 26 minutes 40 seconds
Server errors last month: 0
Accidentally deleted users: Qikz AKA StayDead
Script Kiddies/"Hackers": Schrodinger's Postman
More than 1 actual life served converting databases:: Karl
Server technicians (past and present): Karl AKA Karlprof (Linux/Apache whiz), Winckle (Linux, Mumble, games guru), Garth (VDS/VPS/forum hosting king), Green Gecko (typing symbols into computers)
Server custodians/treasurers/named persons: Steve, Garth, Mafro, Green Gecko
The GRcade datacentre in Roubaix
Our server blade is in a rack like this
Did you know?
Your data is held securely in accordance with the UK Data Protection Act, in Europe, protected by British and European privacy and data protection laws. There has been no evidence of any compromise of the GRcade database in the forum's history, although we have had medium level social engineering hacks and DDoS attacks that were resolved by our dedicated staff.
The server is protected by physical defences (such as walls and barbed wire fences), security badge control system, video surveillance and security personnel 24/7 on-site and conforms to security standards ISO 27002 and ISO 27005.
GRcade is green. 70% of heat emitted is dispersed by water cooling and redundancy of air condition reduces power consumption by 50% compared to other datacentres.
Please, give whatever you can via PayPal GIFT ("friends and family" - no fees) at
or PM me for bank details, and I will gratefully receive your contributions and attribute them towards clearing the deficit and the future payment(s).
Code: Select all
We typically go comfortably with a good volume of small donations from a wide range of members, and a few very generous ones - every penny makes a difference. For example, in the past 2 years, there have only been 2 donation drives, although admittedly, there should have been 1 or 2 more, as I simply can't afford to sustain losses for obvious reasons.
Many thanks in advance for your help, and thank you to you - the GRcade community - for making this place somewhere to love and care for and remain part of for so many, including myself, for 15 years or more.
Very best wishes,
Ben AKA Green Gecko


text: OverviewBack to top Natural Chemistry - Natural Flea Shampoo For Cats - 16.9 oz. Item# :115856UPC# :717108110042 Brand:Natural Chemistry Size/Form:16.90 oz. Ship Weight:3.80 Natural Chemistry Natural Flea Shampoo For Cats 16.9 oz. (500 ml) Natural Chemistry Natural Flea Shampoo For Cats is a natural botanical extract formula that does not contain pyrethins or similar chemicals. It leaves the natural scents of cinnamon and clove while providing flea and tick control for up to one week. Natural Flea Shampoo is good for use on cats of all ages, is safe and non-toxic, will not wash out, and kills fleas on contact. The Natural Flea products for cats do not have an age restriction due to the fact that they are comprised of natural oils that are pre-approved by EPA. If Natural Flea products for cats are used on very young kittens, it is high;y recommended to keep them warm until they are completely dry, as young animals are more susceptible to catching colds. This product does not have an age restriction and it is safe for your skin as well as your pet's. May cause yellowing of fur on light colored cats. For over 20 years, Natural Chemistry has taken great pride in researching and developing technologies that are safe for people, pets, and the planet. The original scope of products included gentle enzyme grooming care and home solutions. Now they offer an extensive line of solutions for: Killing fleas, ticks and mites on pets and in their environments Removing odors from pets and around the home Discouraging destructive chewing, licking and biting Calming pets while bathing Soothing skin irritations like eczema, hot spots and insect bites Eliminating odors and stains caused by urine, vomit and feces Natural Chemistry products contain no pyrethins or related chemicals to ensure the safety of your pets. They are committed to the development of harmless products that are effective solutions for the grooming, home care and pest control needs of your pet. Natural Chemistry unconditionally guarantees that their products will perform as promised. They invite you to read all about their products and programs, and encourage you to take advantage of the benefits these products provide. Performance Guaranteed. In the late 1980s, Robert Kulperger recognized a growing market demand for natural, yet reliable cleaning products. Being a chemical engineer, he was inspired by nature's ability to continually transform energy and matter quickly and efficiently. It occurred to him that he could harness this ability to eliminate unwanted organic contaminants safely and naturally. Thus, Natural Chemistry was born. In 1989, Natural Chemistry developed a broad spectrum of all-natural enzymes to breakdown unwanted organic contamination in pools and spas. Their powerful natural enzyme technology leads the industry over many manufactured enzymes with superior performance and reliability. In 2000, they created a patented formula to effectively remove problem-causing orthophosphates from pool water by simply pouring it into the skimmer. PHOSfree continues to be the only phosphate remover that eliminates phosphates on the pool's filter media. In mid 2001, the Natural Chemistry Pet & Home Solutions division was born in the US with the merging of the stain & odor removing enzyme products from Natural Chemistry Canada and the new DeFlea line of non-toxic flea and tick control products in the US. In March of 2002, the DeFlea line of non toxic products was introduced into the pet industry. DeFlea is a highly effective alternative to typical pyrethin-based flea treatments. In 2005, Instant Pool Water Conditioner modernized the traditional time consuming addition of stabilizer with its fast-acting, easy application formula. The easy pour solution instantly protects chlorine from sunlight loss and reduces the time and hassle of adding regular cyanuric acid. In fall of 2008, Natural Chemistry introduced its new line of Natural Flea and Tick control products. The all-natural blend of botanicals kills fleas and ticks by contact and provides control for up to one week. Late in 2009, they introduced a new line of all-natural dog shampoos. The natural factors are non-irritating to pet's skin and will not wash out any spot-on flea and tick treatments. Today, Natural Chemistry is the leading manufacturer of specialty products for pool, spa and pet care. Their products are not only highly effective, but also safe for people and pets and the planet. Natural Chemistry understands that the environmental responsibility does not begin and end with manufacturing natural products. It is everyone's duty to manage their environmental impact as they move through the product life cycle. By progressively evaluating their operations and creating consumer awareness, they are enabling the overall efficiency of the company and establishing a better future for the generations to come. Natural Chemistry focuses their earth initiatives in two main areas: Products Non-toxic, Biodegradable Ingredients: Many of the product lines are formulated with non-toxic, biodegradable ingredients to create safer environments for families to enjoy. They have provided safe and effective alternatives to traditional high chemical-based products to treat many pool, spa and pet problems. All Natural Chemistry products do not have expiry dates ensuring no unnecessary waste. Formula Concentration: The development of higher concentrate formulas for sever of their best selling products has allowed to conserve water, packaging materials, and fuel for shipping loads. Packaging: All Natural Chemistry products are packaged in 100% recyclable materials. Recycling their products allows the material to be reused for other products which reduces the amount of waste in landfills and energy used to create new materials. Marketing: The majority of of Natural Chemistry's printed marketing materials such as brochures, product information sheets are produced using the Forest Stewardship Council certified stock. The label on the marketing print documents signifies that it came from forests that are managed to meet the social, economic and ecological needs of present and future generations. Also, they minimize printing by making their marketing materials available online for customer use. Operations Processes they have established policies to: Reduce fuel consumption and emissions by: Shipping full trucks only within inter-company operations; Incentivize customers for purchasing full truck loads; Encouraging staff use of hybrid and fuel efficient vehicles Utilize shipping materials that: Preserve forestry; Divert waste from landfills; Reduce pollution during the manufacturing process; Reuse waste as raw material to help close the recycling loop Facility: Within their facilities, Natural Chemistry has optimized the use of: natural lighting natural elements for ventilation efficient temperature control through radiant heating "Creative and sensible, natural solutions." Natural Chemistry's purpose is to enhance the lives of everyone they touch. They are constantly developing thoughtful, sensible solutions that focus both on the environment and the best interests of commerce and the consumer. Through creative innovation and an energetic response to any challenge, they will continue to forge new pathways to provide only the best in product choices for the marketplace. They will always maintain their culture of family based values as the dominant guiding force in the relationships they must develop on their journey. Through this approach, they strive to enrich the moments in life that mean the most to all and create a meaningful legacy. Natural Chemistry strives to: Provide chemical-free natural solutions to common problems Make their products quick and easy to implement Provide treatment program for specific problems Provide a wide variety of products to cater to many different needs And overall, improve the lives of your pets, pool and spa!


text:
Topic: What do I need to know about transplant?
As I sit here with tears falling down my face, thinking about leaving my children to get a transplant, my heart breaks.
I wish this was easy. I fear this. But it could save my life. I don't know what to do, or what to say.
I'm so scared they will open and close. SO SCARED. I'm scared to leave my babies. What if it would be the last time I see them? This is life or death for me. Everyone around me is so happy for me. But I can't he to think they are all crazy, and don't understand what is really going on.
I just want to be a good wife and mother. I don't want to deal with this. I'm tired of cancer controlling my life.
So, I need all of you to help me. I need the pros and cons of all this. What advice do you have?
Wife to Brian; Mommy to Carter (11) and Madison (8)
Liver transplant 7-9-2013


text:
Frequently asked questions about product licensing
Get answers to your product licensing questions. This page contains answers to the top product licensing questions that our Microsoft support teams receive.
The following questions are related to product licensing under Microsoft Volume Licensing agreements unless otherwise noted. Licensing information for retail (FPP) or original equipment manufacturer (OEM) products can be found in the Software License Agreement terms for those products. If you need more information or your question is not answered here, please contact your Microsoft reseller or your regional Microsoft customer support center.
Introduction to Product Terms
- What is the Product Terms document, and what happened to the Product List and Product Use Rights (PUR)? My organization's Volume Licensing agreement points to the Product List and PUR for how to license, deploy, and use products.
The Product Terms replaces the Product List and Product Use Rights (PUR) beginning July 1, 2015. The Product Terms consolidates and distills the content previously published in the Product List and PUR, without substantively changing terms and conditions for existing products. We have combined the two documents into one Product Terms document that is structured based on the products so that it's easier to understand how to purchase and use products. The new document reduces the overall size of the contract without diminishing customers' use rights.
- My organization's Volume Licensing agreement does not reference the Product Terms. How can the new document apply to how we license, deploy, and use products?
The Product Terms is backward compatible with existing Volume Licensing agreements. The Product Terms states that references to Product Use Rights and the Product List in customer agreements refer to the applicable sections of the new document. The Product Terms does not substantively change how you may deploy and use products, and existing customers can look to the Product Terms (for products covered by the new document) or, as your agreements permit, the existing Product Use Rights for your use of product versions that were available prior to July 1, 2015.
- I like the idea of having everything in one place, but how do I use the Product Terms?
If you are accustomed to the structure of the Product List, the Product Terms will look very familiar. Like the Product List, the Product Terms is organized around Product Entries. The Product Entries provide information specific to a product and point you to other relevant content in supporting sections of the document (for example, Universal License Terms or the Software Assurance Appendix). Product Entries provide Program Availability (table moved from Product List), Product Conditions (also from Product List), Use Rights (from Product Use Rights), and Software Assurance terms (from Software Assurance Appendix in Product Use Rights and Software Assurance section of Product List). The document is designed to be easier to use. For example, you can point to the blue text to display term definitions or click links in the document to go to relevant terms and conditions outside of the Product Entries.
- How often will updates to the Product Terms be published?
Like the Product List, the Product Terms will be updated monthly. These monthly updates enable the use rights to be aligned with price list availability. Previously, the Product Use Rights were updated quarterly, sometimes preceding price list availability by up to two months.
- What happened to the Software Assurance Appendix in the Product Use Rights? I see some of the content shows up in the Product Terms, Appendix B – Software Assurance, but not all of it.
If they are specific to a product (for example, Windows Enterprise rights), the rights that were listed in the Software Assurance Appendix in the Product Use Rights now appear in the Product Entries in the Software Assurance section. If they are applicable to more than one product, they are flagged in the Software Assurance table in the Product Entry and are either defined in the glossary or addressed in Appendix B - Software Assurance. In either case, links in the document take you directly to the applicable license terms.
- What happened to the Data Transfer Notices document that was linked to the Product Use Rights that provided information about Internet-based features in the products? How do I find it?
The Data Transfer Notices document is not cross-referenced in the Product Terms. For more information about Internet-based features contained in the products, the Product Terms points to the privacy statement available in each Software Product. The Data Transfer Notices document that was linked to the April 2015 Product Use Rights (the last update to the PUR) is still available through the Product Licensing Search page.
- My organization bought licenses for Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2013 in May. If we buy more licenses in July, do we have to look at two different documents for terms governing different users' use rights for the software depending on which licenses are assigned to them?
The terms of your Volume Licensing agreement determine which license terms apply to the use of software. In some cases, the Product Use Rights in effect at signing an Enrollment govern use of all versions available as of that date and all licenses for those versions purchased during the Enrollment, regardless of the specific license order date. In other cases, the Product Use Rights in effect as of the order date govern use of software under licenses acquired.
The introduction of Product Terms does not change these rules on how to determine which Product Use Rights apply to your purchased licenses. In the specific case of Office Professional Plus 2013 purchased under an Enterprise Enrollment, the terms of the April 2015 (or earlier) Product Use Rights would continue to apply to additional licenses purchased during the Enrollment term. When you make purchases under a transactional Volume Licensing agreement such as Select Plus or the MPSA, the Use Rights sections of the July 2015 Product Terms will apply to licenses ordered during the month of July.
- What language versions will be available for the Product Terms? In the past, the language set for the Product List was limited to 11 languages, but the Product Use Rights (PUR) was available in 35 languages.
The Product Terms will be available in the same 35 languages that the PUR was available in; however, some languages may not yet be available on July 1. There are no substantive changes to the license terms published in the April PUR and the July Product Terms, so you can refer to the April 2015 Product Use Rights for applicable Use Rights until your preferred language version of the Product Terms has been published. All language versions of Product Terms will be available by August 1, 2015.
Downgrade rights
- My organization has a Volume Licensing agreement. Where can I confirm my specific downgrade rights and eligible versions to downgrade?
Downgrade rights (rights to use a prior version of a product) are granted as part of all the Volume Licensing agreements. However, you need to refer to the Microsoft Product Terms for particular downgrade paths for specific products because they may have migrated to other products or other editions.
For more information, see the Volume Licensing brief for downgrade rights.
- I have licensed Office Professional Plus 2013 through a Volume Licensing agreement. Can I downgrade it to Office Standard 2013 or Office Standard 2010?
No. Downgrade rights grant the end user the right to use prior versions of Microsoft software, not other editions of the software released at the same time, unless explicitly stated in the Product Terms (or successor documents).
Note that Microsoft makes a distinction between the terms "version" and "edition" when referring to product licenses. The term "edition" means different functional offerings within a product family that are usually released at the same time (for example, Office Professional Plus 2013 and Office Standard 2013). The term "version" refers to different generations of a product family. Downgrade rights between the current generation (N), the prior generation (N-1), and the generation prior to that (N-2) are limited to the same functional editions within each version (for example, Windows 10 Pro downgrades to Windows 8.1 Pro).
- I need to downgrade to a prior version of a Microsoft product that my organization licenses through Volume Licensing. How do I get prior versions of products?
Although you have the right to downgrade products, the Microsoft Volume Licensing Service Center (VLSC) generally provides download access only to the current (N) and the prior version (N-1) of products. Note: In addition to VLSC download software access, all Volume Licensing customers can choose to purchase physical media (CD/DVD) copies of their licensed software through their Microsoft reseller.
If you previously received physical media (CD/DVD) of prior Microsoft products that your organization is currently licensed to use through downgrade rights, you may use these prior software versions at your discretion. Learn more about Microsoft Volume Licensing fulfillment.
Reimaging rights
- Can I reimage OEM PC's with Volume Licensing media?
Yes, however some conditions apply. For more information, download the Volume Licensing brief for reimaging rights.
Software Assurance
- I purchased Office Professional Plus 2013 with Software Assurance, and my Software Assurance coverage recently expired. How can I confirm which product version I am entitled to upgrade to under the Software Assurance New Version Rights benefit?To confirm when products were made available, review the Microsoft Product Terms.
- I purchased a product license with Software Assurance coverage almost three years ago, and I want to renew my Software Assurance coverage now. However, the product has been rebranded and renamed since I first licensed it. Where can I find information about which new product version I should purchase with Software Assurance?To confirm successor versions of products and particular Software Assurance migration paths for products that have migrated to other products or other editions, review the Microsoft Product Terms. Refer to the index for products no longer available. The index will refer you to relevant migration rights and the Product Terms (or Product List) update in which they appeared.
- Can I add Software Assurance to an OEM/Retail product license?Yes, you can attach standalone Software Assurance coverage to an OEM/Retail product license, but you must do so within 90 days of purchasing the OEM/Retail (FPP; full packaged product) product license. This option is available only for particular products through particular Volume Licensing programs. For details, see the Microsoft Product Terms.
- If I attach Software Assurance to an OEM/Retail product license within 90 days, which use rights apply?If you acquire Software Assurance for an OEM/Retail (FPP; full packaged product) product license within 90 days of purchase, you gain the option of installing and using the Volume Licensing software version of the product at any time. If you do this, your use of the software becomes subject to the Microsoft Product Terms for that product and the terms and conditions of your organization's Volume Licensing agreement.
Third-party use
- In our company, we have onsite contractors who work on short-term projects. Can we assign Microsoft product licenses (Office, CALs, etc.) that we purchased through our own Volume Licensing agreement to these contractor-owned devices so they use our licensed software for our projects?
Yes, as long as those licenses are used for the benefit of your company, the licensee, you can assign your licenses to third-party devices.
You are limited in how often you can assign your licenses. Volume Licensing product licenses can be reassigned to other devices every 90 days, not more frequently. If the software will be used for the benefit of the contractors and not your organization then the contractors need to purchase their own licenses or explore other types of short-term software subscription licenses.
Windows 10
- What versions of Windows 10 are offered through Volume Licensing?The following Windows 10 editions are offered through Volume Licensing:
- Windows 10 Enterprise E3 (available per user or per device)
- Windows 10 Enterprise E5 (available per user or per device)
- Windows 10 Pro Upgrade
- Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB
- Windows Virtual Desktop Access (VDA) (available per user or per device)
- Windows 10 Education E3
- Windows 10 Education E5
See the Microsoft Product Terms for details by offer.
- Can I buy Windows 10 Enterprise offers outside of Volume Licensing?No. Windows 10 Enterprise offers are only available for purchase through Volume Licensing agreements.
- What is Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection (WDATP)? Can my organization buy WDATP through Volume Licensing?Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection is a new service that helps enterprises detect, investigate, and respond to advanced attacks on their networks. It is only available in Windows 10 Enterprise E5 through Volume Licensing.
- I can't find Windows 10 Enterprise with Software Assurance or Windows 10 Education in the Product Terms. Are these still available?Windows 10 Enterprise with Software Assurance is now Windows 10 Enterprise E3. And Windows 10 Education is now Windows 10 Education E3. These are simply name changes, with no change to included features.
Upgrade license
- What is a "Volume Licensing Upgrade License" for the Windows operating system for PCs?Microsoft Volume Licensing programs do not offer Windows desktop operating system licenses; Volume Licensing provides only Windows upgrade licenses. Before you are eligible to acquire an upgrade license for the Windows desktop PC operating system through Microsoft Volume Licensing programs, you must first have licensed and installed a qualified full desktop operating system on your device.
Access by multiple users/devices
- Can I use Windows Pro or Enterprise like a "server" to host applications?No. The Windows desktop operating system cannot be used as a "server." Device connection is allowed only for certain purposes (such as File Services, Print Services, Internet Information Services, Internet Connection Sharing, and Telephony Services). If you want to host applications and access them from multiple devices or for multiple users simultaneously, you need to license Server/CAL products. For more information, download the Volume Licensing brief for Licensing Windows client and server operating systems in multiuser scenarios.
- Can I install multiple copies of the Windows operating system after I buy a Windows Enterprise Upgrade license under my Volume Licensing agreement?You can install multiple copies of the Windows operating system on the licensed device only if the device licensed for Windows Enterprise is covered with active Software Assurance for Windows, as stated in the Microsoft Product Terms.
- I am using a PC with Windows Enterprise that has four virtual machines (VMs) running on it. Can other users remotely access these VMs while I'm using my PC?No. The use of the software is limited to one user at any given time. This includes the use of Roaming Rights (see below); while the primary user is accessing Roaming Rights, no other user is permitted to use the actual licensed device. For more information, see the Volume Licensing brief Licensing Windows desktop operating system for use with virtual machines (PDF, 147 KB).
Rental Rights
- My company has rented PCs for its employees from a PC rental company. Should I purchase Rental Right licenses?No. Rental Rights licenses are special, supplemental licenses for purchase by PC rental or leasing companies that buy and continue to own fleets of PCs. They are not designed for end-user customers. Learn more about Rental Rights.
- When does my organization need Rental Rights licenses?Rental Rights licenses address scenarios in which organizations rent, lease, or outsource PCs to third parties. The following are examples of scenarios that are in and out of the scope of the Rental Rights licenses.
In scope
Out of scope
Office equipment leasing companies
Business service centers (for example, copy/print stores)
Internet cafés
Hotel and airport kiosks
Government-tendered shared access
License Microsoft products via a hosted solution (Services Provider License Agreement [SPLA])Libraries
Academic institutions
Internal use (shared PCs)
Traditional financing (for example, rent-to-own programs)
Finance Leases and Long-Term Leases are permitted as described in the Lease Agreement for Microsoft Products Installed on Leased Computers (PDF, 270 KB)
Software Assurance and Windows Virtual Desktop Access (VDA)
- What editions of Windows are eligible for Software Assurance?Windows Enterprise is the only edition eligible for Software Assurance.
- What is the Windows VDA (Virtual Desktop Access) subscription license?Windows VDA is a per device or per user subscription license designed to help organizations license devices or users that do not qualify for Software Assurance, such as "thin client" devices and users who are not the primary user of a device that qualifies for Software Assurance. The license provides the right to access a virtual desktop. Per device and per user Windows VDA subscriptions are available through the Microsoft Volume Licensing Enterprise Agreement, Select Plus, Microsoft Products and Services Agreement, and Enrollment for Education Solutions programs. Per device Windows VDA subscriptions are also available through the Open Value and Open Value Subscription programs.
- Can I license Windows Enterprise or Windows VDA on a per user basis?Yes. With Windows Enterprise per User and Windows VDA per User options, you license an individual instead of a device. With the per user license, you can:
- Install Windows Enterprise locally on any of the licensed user's devices that are licensed for Windows 7/8/8.1/10, and any Windows tablet that has a diagonal screen size of 10.1 inches or fewer.
- Access Windows Enterprise across any of the licensed user's devices with Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) or Windows To Go.
- We have a Services Provider Licensing Agreement (SPLA). Can we provide Windows-based desktops as a hosted service for our end customers through SPLA?Currently, there is no SPLA model for Windows VDA. Customers who subscribe to desktops from a third-party hoster will need to pay Microsoft for a Windows VDA license for each device accessing Windows client virtual machines in the datacenter. Additionally, hosters need to ensure that they isolate the hardware and other resources for each company (that is, no two customers can share the same set of resources, such as hardware, storage, and the like).
Remote access
- Do I need a Windows VDA subscription license to remotely access my work PC (licensed to run Windows Pro) in the office from my home PC (licensed to run Windows Home)?The Windows VDA subscription license is not required if you are the single primary user of the licensed device (work PC in the office). In that case, you may remotely access that PC from any device. Non-primary users may access that PC if the remote device is separately licensed to run Windows Pro, the remote device has the active Windows VDA subscription license, or the user is licensed for Window Software Assurance per User or Windows VDA per User.
- What are Roaming Use Rights for Windows?
Roaming Use Rights enable Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) users to access their secure corporate desktop through an unmanaged device such as a home PC or an Internet kiosk, without the need for their company-owned PC. These rights enable a single primary user of a device that is covered with active Software Assurance for Windows or by a Windows VDA subscription license to access their Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) desktop while off the organization's premises, using any device that is not owned by or affiliated with the user's organization. A primary user is defined as the user who uses the device more than 50 percent of the time. If there is no user who uses the device more than 50 percent of the time, then there is no primary user for that particular device.
If the user does not have a company-owned device at work that is licensed for Windows VDA subscription or active Software Assurance for Windows and the user needs to access the VDI desktop from a home PC, then the home PC would need to be covered with a separate Windows VDA subscription license or the user would need to be licensed for Windows Software Assurance per User or Windows VDA per User.
These Roaming Use Rights are also available for the single primary user of a device that is licensed with MDOP, Software Assurance for Office Professional Plus, or a VDI Suite license.
For information related to ongoing support for Roaming Rights, see the February 2016 Product Terms. The following three scenarios determine a customer's Roaming Use Rights:
- Customers who did not have Windows Software Assurance (or VDA) previously, and then signed a new agreement or enrollment with Windows Software Assurance (or VDA) on or after March 1, 2016, do not have Roaming Use Rights.
- Customers who had Windows Software Assurance (or VDA) previously, and renewed their agreement/enrollment with Windows Software Assurance (or VDA) after March 1, 2016, will retain Roaming Use Rights until January 31, 2017.
- Customers who signed a new agreement or enrollment with Windows Software Assurance (or VDA) before March 1, 2016, will retain Roaming Use Rights until their agreement or enrollment ends (maximum case would be February 28, 2019).
Note: Roaming Use Rights apply only to Windows Software Assurance and Windows VDA when licensed per device. Windows Software Assurance per User and Windows VDA per User licenses grant the same rights, but from any device, anywhere.
Office Professional Plus for Office 365
- Office Professional Plus is offered as a software product and under subscription services. Aren't those the same product?
No. The products both offer a great productivity experience, but they are not the same product. The products are two different ways to consume Microsoft Office—you can choose the offering that best fits your needs.
Office Professional Plus for Office 365 is a per user subscription service offering, not a desktop application software product. To use the software, you must have an active subscription. You can install and use the software on up to five different devices while the subscription is active.
Perpetual rights are typically available under a desktop application license. With this type of license, you have the right to use the software for as long as you want (as long as you comply with other licensing conditions); however, the license is assigned to a single device that may be used by different users (one at a time).
- I have a personal laptop device that I like using at work for meetings. How should I license this device if I want to use Office Professional Plus for Office 365?If you are licensed for Office Professional Plus for Office 365, you may deploy and use Office on up to five devices, anywhere; they may be either company-managed or third-party devices. You may deploy one of five permitted copies on a personal laptop device and use it to work from anywhere, at home or at work.
- Our company has a mixed deployment of Office Professional Plus 2010 and Office Professional Plus 2013 under a Select Plus agreement. May I use Office Professional Plus 2013 in place of my Office Professional Plus for Office 365 license? Aren't those the same product?No. Office Professional Plus for Office 365 is a per user subscription service, not a desktop application software product (like Office Professional Plus 2013). Therefore, you must deploy the user-authenticated software provided to Office 365 users.
Qualified device
- According to the Microsoft Product Terms, the right to install an additional copy on a portable device for use by the single primary user of the licensed device, termed the "portable device right," is available for Microsoft desktop applications. My company has more than 1,000 Office Professional Plus licenses under an Enterprise Agreement. Do I have portable device rights to also install Office on 1,000 portable computers?
No. The "portable device right" is not relevant for Office Professional Plus licenses purchased as "company-wide" Enterprise Products under the terms of Enterprise Agreement, Enterprise Subscription Agreement, Open Value Company-wide, Open Value Subscription, and Campus and School Agreements.
For those programs, all devices—including portable computers that are used by or for the benefit of an organization's users—need to be counted as Qualified Devices in order to purchase Enterprise Products (such as Windows Upgrade licenses, Office Professional Plus, Core CAL Suite/Enterprise CAL Suite).
For more information see your Volume License agreement and Microsoft Product Terms.
Remote access
- Do I need an additional Office license to be able to remotely access my work PC in my office from my home PC?If you are the single primary user of that work PC in the office, you may remotely access that PC from any device. But if you are not the primary user of that work PC, you will need an additional Office license on the device that you are using.
- The Microsoft Product Terms say I can use desktop application software on a network device. What does this mean?Under the network use provision, you may run software on a network server that will be accessed and used by your licensed desktops by using Remote Desktop Services (or similar technology) and/or VDI (Virtual Desktop Infrastructure). To access applications such as Office on your network, you must also license each remote accessing device even if Office software is not installed on the local device (for example the local device is a "thin client").
- I have installed Microsoft Office on a network server for access using Windows Remote Desktop Services. I have acquired Remote Desktop Services User Client Access Licenses (CALs) for each of my employees. I want my employees to be able to access Microsoft Office from any desktop/thin client. What licenses do I need to properly license Microsoft Office within this environment?Because Microsoft Office is licensed through a device-based licensing model only, each desktop desktop/thin client that is used to access Microsoft Office by using Remote Desktop Services must have a separate Microsoft Office license dedicated to it. Licenses for Microsoft Office cannot be shared across desktops to support concurrent use. Furthermore, with the 2007 release, generally only licenses obtained through Volume Licensing can be deployed to a network server for remote access. The same rules apply to VDI scenarios. Each desktop/thin client that is used to access Microsoft Office running on virtual desktops on the server must have a separate Microsoft Office license dedicated to it. For more information, see the Volume Licensing brief for licensing of Microsoft desktop application software for use with Windows Server Remote Desktop Services.
Multiple copies on a licensed device
- I am running four Virtual Machines (VMs) with Windows Enterprise on a PC that has active Software Assurance coverage. May I install the Office suite in each of the four VMs by using only one Office Professional Plus 2010 license?Yes, you may install any number of copies and any prior version on the licensed device. Software Assurance is not required for this use right for Office.
CAL requirements
- I have Exchange Server 2013 and SQL Server 2012 running on Windows Server 2012 R2. Are all Client Access Licenses (CALs) licensed in the same way?
No. CAL requirements differ among server products. The general rule is that you must acquire and assign a CAL to each device or user that accesses your server software. Beyond that, however, there may be product-specific exceptions to that rule that affect a given product's CAL requirement.
With Exchange Server 2013, for example, CALs are not required unless the server access is directly or indirectly authenticated by using Active Directory. For Windows Server, a CAL is required for all users or devices that are accessing the server. The CAL must be of the same edition or later; however, for Windows Server 2012 R2, you can use a Windows Server 2012 CAL to access the server.
For complete information about the different Microsoft CAL requirements, see the Microsoft Product Terms.
- Do additive CALs work with only specific editions of server software, such as Standard Edition or Enterprise Edition, or do they work with any edition?
Generally, additive CALs can access any edition of server software. For example, Exchange Server 2010 and Exchange Server 2013 are available in both a Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition. The Exchange Standard CAL and Exchange Enterprise CAL may be used with either edition of the server software.
For more information, download the Volume Licensing brief for Base and Additive Client Access Licenses.
- Do additive Remote Desktop Services (RDS) CALs work with only a specific version of server software, such as Windows Server 2012 or Windows Server 2012 R2, or do they work with any edition?
The CAL version must correspond to the server software version that it accesses. Older versions of CALs cannot be used with the newer version of the server software, but newer version RDS CALs can be used with an older version of the server software as defined in the RDS and TS CAL Interoperability Matrix.
The only exception to this rule is the R2 server releases; the older CALs sometimes work with the newer R2 release of server software. For example, there are no new Windows Server 2012 R2 RDS CALs required, so the current requirement is that you need at least a Windows Server 2012 RDS CAL to access RDS on Windows Server 2012 R2 servers.
- Company B is an affiliate (a term defined in Volume Licensing agreements) of Company A. I have CALs purchased by company A under a Select Agreement to access company A's servers. Can I also access servers purchased by company B (under an Open License) utilizing those CALs?Yes. Your company's CALs permit access to servers licensed by your company or its affiliates. They do not permit access to any other entity's licensed servers.
- Do I need a Remote Desktop Services (RDS) CAL if I am using a third-party technology (such as Citrix XenApp, Citrix XenDesktop, Ericom PowerTerm WebConnect, Quest Virtual Access Suite, GraphOn Go-Global) to do VDI on Windows Server?Yes. An RDS CAL is required for any technology that is used to directly or indirectly interact with a graphical user interface of the server software. This includes (but is not limited to) using Microsoft Remote Desktop Services or other third-party software that enables multiuser scenarios on Windows Server.
- Do I need an RDS CAL if I am not running a multiuser environment but use functionality in Remote Desktop Services; for example, Remote Desktop Services Gateway?
Yes. An RDS CAL is required for the use of any functionality included in the Remote Desktop Services role in Windows Server. For example, if you are using RDS Gateway and/or Remote Desktop Web Access to provide access to a Windows client operating system on an individual PC/virtual desktop, both an RDS CAL and a Windows Server CAL are required.
For more information, download the Volume Licensing brief for licensing Windows Server 2012 Remote Desktop Services.
- If a user or device accesses a server running Windows Server but is authenticating via a third-party authentication application (non-Microsoft-based authentication), does the user or device still require a Windows Server CAL?Yes, if the user or device is authenticated or otherwise individually identified by a server running Windows Server through any other means, the user or device must have a Windows Server CAL. The specific Windows Server CAL requirement is defined in the Microsoft Product Terms.
- I am aware that "accessing or using the services or functionality of SQL Server or any of its components (for example, Reporting Services)" always requires a SQL Server CAL. What about a situation in which a user posts a report (a defined publication of information on a fixed schedule) and other users simply look at the report in an HTML file or on a website? They cannot actively influence the content that is being displayed. If the information from this report in HTML format is being made visible to other users, do they need SQL Server CALs?
Yes. If those processes by which the data is made accessible to users are all automated, SQL Server CALs (or per processor licenses) are required because this use is considered a multiplexing scenario. Multiplexing does not reduce the number of Microsoft licenses that are required. End users are required to have appropriate licenses, regardless of their direct or indirect connection to the product. Any user or device that accesses the server, files, data, or content provided by the server that is made available through an automated process requires a CAL.
However, if someone manually uploads or sends an HTML file that was made by SQL Server to a website, then SQL CALs are not required. For more information, download the Volume Licensing brief for multiplexing.
EC versus SPLA
- I have external users (users who are not employees or onsite contractors) who will access our servers. How do I choose between External Connector licenses or licensing these users through the Services Provider License Agreement (SPLA)?An External Connector (EC) license is an alternative to CALs for each server that external users will access. An EC license assigned to a server permits access by any number of external users, as long as that access is for the benefit of the licensee and not the external user. If the usage does not meet these conditions, you need to choose SPLA because such access is considered Hosting.
- I am an SPLA Hosting Provider. Can end-customer–owned licenses (such as SQL Server, Exchange Server, or other server applications acquired through Microsoft Volume Licensing agreements) be relied on for licensing a guest user in my virtualized environment licensed under SPLA?
Yes. If your end customer has active Software Assurance on a qualifying server application licensed product, your end customer may use their qualifying license to run the application in an SPLA virtualized environment. The virtualized environment used by the end customer must be dedicated to the customer's sole use and may not be shared with any other separately licensed end customers. In addition, the SPLA providing the hosted service to the end customer must be an Authorized Mobility Partner.
For details, visit the License Mobility through Software Assurance webpage.
Specialty server
- I am using Windows Server to run an Internet Web Solution or a High Performance Computing (HPC) workload. Do I need a CAL to access these workloads?No. Windows Server does not require that a user or a device have a Windows Server CAL to access Internet Web Solutions or High Performance Computing workloads (see the Microsoft Product Terms for the definition of these workloads). For all other access to the server software, a CAL is required for each user or device.