Re: Counting device/user CALs (again)

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

From: jjjdavidson (jjjdavidson_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 02/17/05 

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:03:10 -0800

Inline myself:

"Henry Craven [SBS-MVP]" wrote:

> 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.

I see your point, and it makes sense. I was thinking of administrator
logon. It makes sense that using the server as a workstation (horrible
sounding, that) would require a CAL.

> >> 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.

Sounds reasonable. I don't think MS quite thought some of this all the way
through...

> >> 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/

Thanks again! I think I've got an interpretation we can support, now.

Quantcast