Comment 2 Frida Flodin 2025-06-09 13:39:29 CEST

This should be done now, tested to login 4 different users. The last one did not get a session. Also, to create a new session for an already logged-in user from the same hardware address, this session was allowed.


> MUST:
> * 3 concurrent users can use ThinLinc without a valid license file.
Yes
> * When the 4th user tries to start a session it should be refused, the user gets a notification why, and information about this is found in vsmserver.log
Yes the same notification as before, and it's visible in the vsmserver.log.
> * More than 3 concurrent users can use ThinLinc with a valid license in /opt/thinlinc/etc/licenses
Yes it works
> SHOULD:
> * No soft limit warning is printed in vsmserver.log when the 3rd session is started.
It doesn't

Comment 3 Frida Flodin 2025-06-09 13:41:52 CEST

The things that are left is changing the website and maybe aid the users to find the community license files. But I leave this to the marketing team?

Comment 4 Tobias 2025-06-10 15:03:08 CEST

Tested using server build #4097 on RHEL8 with client 4.18.0 on Fedora42.

Apart from testing the new license restrictions pertaining to the acceptance criteria, multisession appears to be working as intended.

> MUST:
> * 3 concurrent users can use ThinLinc without a valid license file.
✅ Without a license file, a 4th user is refused.
> * When the 4th user tries to start a session it should be refused, the user gets a notification why, and information about this is found in vsmserver.log
✅ The user is refused with ”Cannot allocate license” and a corresponding license violation message is found in the server log.
> * More than 3 concurrent users can use ThinLinc with a valid license in /opt/thinlinc/etc/licenses
✅ Working as intended.
> SHOULD:
> * No soft limit warning is printed in vsmserver.log when the 3rd session is started.
✅ No soft limit warning is ever logged for the free 3 concurrent users – just the hard limit at an attempted 4th concurrent user. Using a license file for 10 users with hard limit of 11, a soft limit warning is logged at the 11th user session startup, and subsequently refusing the 12th user with a hard limit warning in the log.

Had a look at the relevant commit and all instances of the previous limit appear to have been changed properly to the new one. Let's also make sure in the near-future that the incoming EULA update incorporates these current EULA changes properly.

License-restricted login appears to be working as intended, and the acceptance criteria are fulfilled. Closing.