Does anyone know what Activation Error 103 is, from FMI's activation server? This is what I get when I try to activate a copy of FMPA 9 on a client's server running Terminal Services?

FYI I'm using the same license code on my main, local workstation, and I have deactivated the copy that was activated on my laptop. I think this should satisfy FMI's requirements. Anyone know any differently?

"... FMPA 9 on a client's server running Terminal Services"

That's the problem. I think you'll need a VLA license code to run on TS.

I've done it before with single-license versions of 8 and 8.5 Advanced. The way I've done it is to install the single license version so that I'm the only user that can run it. The rest of the TS users use FMP under a VLA license.

Do you know for certain that Activation Error 103 means that I need a VLA license?

Thanks!

-Kent

A little more sleuthing turned this up in FMI's Knowledge Base.

I'm going to try to get my client to launch it locally, while logged in as me, and see if that solves the problem. I'll post the result.

Just a follow up to let you all know what I discovered.

None of the FileMaker Pro 9 products can be launched remotely via Remote Desktop on a server running Terminal Services. The application has to be launched locally on the TS server and then others can access it via Remote Desktop. Obviously, this will not work for me as a single-license user.

FileMaker Pro 9 products can be launched remotely via DameWare Mini Remote Control on a server running Terminal Services. http://www.dameware.com/products/dmrc/ Unfortunately for me, this is not a Mac application, so I'd have to do my FileMaker work on a PC, which I'm not as efficient with.

I've opted to uninstall FMPA 9 from the TS server and install FMPA 8.5 instead, thus allowing me to work from my Mac. If I find myself in need of FMPA 9's features, like the enhanced Script Debugger features, I'll temporarily connect as a client via VPN and not use terminal services. It's slower than TS, but I'm being cautiously optimistic that it'll work out reasonably well.

Hopefully this will help others find a reasonable solution if they're faced with a similar situation. If anyone has any better ideas, I'm wide open to suggestion.

-Kent