Re: Counting device/user CALs (again)

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

From: Henry Craven [SBS-MVP] (IUnknown_at_Dot.Nyet)
Date: 02/16/05 

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:15:42 +1100

Inline again....

"jjjdavidson" <jjjdavidson@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CFFEADA9-503D-46B9-9BF7-6411A5AAD9FE@microsoft.com...
> Thanks, Henry. You and Javier Gomez both gave detailed answers, and
> on most
> points you agreed (and agreed with my own "best-guess"
> interpretations). But
> on a couple of things... It's like being back in English class in high
> school: Compare and contrast "Heart of Darkness" with "The Ox-Bow
> Incident"
> :-)
>
>> 2. The server doesn't require a CAL, but if I log on the server, do
>> _I_ require a CAL?
>
> Henry: Yes. You are authenticating to the server.
>
> Javier: No.
>
> Me: Not a real important issue, since probably anybody getting on the
> server will have a user CAL anyway. But what about a company that
> elects to
> use only device CALs (which the FAQ says is legal)?
>

    If logged on as administrator no CAL is required, if logged on as
You ( User ) then one is. at least as far as I understand it. - I'm open
to being corrected and learn something, and Javier is a hotshot on
licensing.

>> 3. If a user workstation is running but no user is logged on, is it
>> "accessing or using the server software", thus requiring a CAL?
>
> Henry: If it Authenticates to the SBServer then it needs a CAL. If no
> "User" is logged on with a "User" CAL then it must be covered by a
> "Device" CAL. Member servers Consume a Device CAL because they
> authenticate to the SBServer and consume services, but may not have
> anyone logged in to them. This ia a similar scenario.
>
> Javier: No. You consume CALs when you authenticate against AD.
>
> Me: Maybe I should have been more specific than "running". Does your
> answer mean that whenever a user with a user CAL logs off, he should
> immediately power down his workstation? If I'm to go by the 30,000
> entries
> per day in the security log, then every workstation "authenticates"
> somehow
> every few minutes, even when it isn't doing a blessed thing. Or have
> I
> misunderstood your answer (probably)? And (in contrast to Q2) what if
> the
> company elects to use only user CALs?

    Sorry disagree with Javier here. Services on the W/S Consuming
Services on the SBServer then it would be IMHO the same as any member
server. As with SBS 2000 where all CALs were device CALs if it was
connected to the SBServer then it needed a CAL. In SBS 2003 it still
needs to be covered by a CAL, be it Device or User. My take in your
scanario would be that if it's a workstation/server ( eg Feeding and ACT
2005 App or Accounting App to other users ) then use a Device CAL. If
It's just a Workstation thats used by users covered by User CALs and
idle but not turned off then consider it covered by the Last User's CAL
until a new log-on occurs.

    Don't think one needs to get too finicky here, as I say, it's a
matter of adhering to the spirit and ethics of the EULA and not nit
picking at the letter of it.

>> P.S. How'd I do ?????
>
> On the newsgroup website it asks, "Did this post answer the question?"
> There need to be three buttons there: YES, NO, and AARGHH! ;-)

    LOL !

> But thanks, I really appreciate the answers.

    No problem, Hope it Helps. 

-- 
Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
CI Information Technology
----------------------------------------------------
Melbourne SBS Users Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/melb-SBSusers/
Quantcast