| Author |
Message |
RG
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:50 pm Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ONKGz4h5FHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | No CAL required per additional server. Final answer!
|
OK - now I'm confused as well :)
Your explanation made sense but previous discussions I've read here have
concluded with 'one CAL per additional server'.
Could some MS bod get one of their colleagues in licensing to post official
confirmation of Microsoft's position on this?
Ronnie |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:50 pm Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
the question is quite plainly answered in the SBS FAQ's on the MS site.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/techinfo/overview/generalfaq.mspx#ELHAC
Networking and Security
Q.What number and types of servers can exist in the Windows Small Business
Server 2003 domain?
A.There are no limits on the number or type of servers that can exist in a
Windows Small Business Server 2003 domain, with the following exceptions:
..Only one computer in a domain can be running Windows Small Business Server
2003.
..Windows Small Business Server 2003 must be the root of the Active Directory
forest.
..Windows Small Business Server 2003 cannot trust any other domains.
..A Windows Small Business Server 2003 domain cannot have any child domains.
..Each additional computer running Windows Server 2003 must have a Windows
Small Business Server 2003 client access license (CAL).
..A Windows Small Business Server 2003 domain can have no more than 75 CALs.
You can use CALs for each user or for each device.
although it doesn't mention it, 2000 servers are subject to the exact same
advice.
"kj" <kj@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uUdisun5FHA.1464@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | I need to call the MS Licensing folks about a SQL thing, maybe I'll pose
this as a piggy back just to see what they say.
It's the "...or other electronic device" verbiage that seems, well, vague
to me.
;-)
* "Device Software" allows a single personal
computer, workstation, terminal, handheld
computer, pager, telephone, personal digital
assistant, or other electronic device
("Device") to access or use the Server
Software.
--
/kj
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%23CK0$um5FHA.204@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I just KNEW someone was going to say that! In that case, the server is NOT
a device, since the EULA does not include "server" anywhere in the
description of a CLIENT Access License, and according to Microsoft, in an
SBS 2003 domain, there is "no such thing" as a server-to-server license..
The user would require a CAL, though, to be legal.
Gregg Hill
"kj" <kj@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:u9yL34j5FHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Of course when a user logs on to a member server using a domain account
then they become an authenticating user and server becomes a device and
really muddies all the waters. ( just don't do it!)
--
/kj
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ONKGz4h5FHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Ronnie,
No, that is incorrect. Per the three different people I spoke to at MS,
there is no such thing as a server-to-server license. The key here is
that the SBS CALs are CLIENT Access Licenses. Other servers on the
network are NOT clients in Microsoft's eyes. I have been told by three
people at Microsoft that you can buy a base SBS 2003 with its five
licenses and add an UNLIMITED number of other servers, NONE of which
consumes an SBS CLIENT Access License.
Per the EULA, a "device" is described as "...a single personal
computer, workstation, terminal, handheld computer, pager, telephone,
personal digital assistant, or other electronic device ("Device")..."
Again, there is no such thing as a server-to-server access license in
an SBS 2003 domain. Other servers are not considered to be a "device"
and do not require a license, other than the server license used to
install the server software itself (Windows NT4 Server, 2000 Server, or
Server 2003). The additional servers can be member servers, and if they
are 2000 or 2003, they can be domain controllers.
From the FAQ you posted:
Q. I want to have additional Windows-based servers in my Windows Small
Business Server 2003 domain. Do I need CALs for those servers?
A. Your Windows Small Business Server 2003 CALs cover you for any
additional Windows-based servers in the domain. You do not need to buy
additional CALs for them.
Per that statement and the multiple clarifications I have gotten for
Microsoft, you are covered for "any additional Windows-based servers"
in the domain. "Any" and all additional servers. "You do not need to
buy additional CALs for them." You can have 75 CALs, with 75 users and
devices, and have 200 other servers, all covered because they reside in
the SBS 2003 domain. "You do not need to buy additional CALs for them."
No CAL required per additional server. Final answer!
Gregg Hill
"RG strath.ac.uk>" <ronnie.gibson<ATSIGN> wrote in message
news:eRbj90d5FHA.2396@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:e6iYgqa5FHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
According to Microsoft, there is no such thing as a server-to-server
license, and SBS 2003 CALs cover ALL additional servers, even if you
have 100's of them. The additional servers do NOT consume an SBS CAL.
Gregg,
I'd imagine those licenses would be termed as 'Device CALs' rather
than
server-to-server licenses.
The confusion on this topic always seems to centre over the ambiguous
statement that additional server on the SBS network don't require any
CALs.
The conclusion usually reached is that while users don't require
additional
CALs to access the additional Windows Server (as they would in a
non-SBS
environment), the server itself does consume one CAL.
So one CAL per additional server but no user CALs required for users
to
access those servers.
Hope that helps,
Ronnie
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gregg Hill
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:50 am Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
I emailed a Microsoft rep with whom I met a couple days ago. Anxiously
awaiting an answer.
Gregg Hill
"RG strath.ac.uk>" <ronnie.gibson<ATSIGN> wrote in message
news:%23L6cMbq5FHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| Quote: |
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ONKGz4h5FHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
No CAL required per additional server. Final answer!
OK - now I'm confused as well :)
Your explanation made sense but previous discussions I've read here have
concluded with 'one CAL per additional server'.
Could some MS bod get one of their colleagues in licensing to post
official
confirmation of Microsoft's position on this?
Ronnie
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gregg Hill
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:50 am Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
"Quite plainly answered" one way in one FAQ and the exact opposite way in
another FAQ.
According to the three Microsoft licensing people with whom I spoke, I can
add unlimited NT, 2000, or 2003 members servers to an SBS 2003 domain, and
they said that the 2000 or 2003 servers can also be domain controllers. I
have SBS 2003 domains set up with NT4 member servers, some with 2000 member
servers, and some with 2003 domain controllers. The Microsoft licensing
department explained that there "...is no such thing as a server-to-server
CAL..." in an SBS 2003 domain. Per the FAQ at
http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsServer2003/sbs/techinfo/overview/licensingfaq.mspx:
"Q. I want to have additional Windows-based servers in my Windows Small
Business Server 2003 domain. Do I need CALs for those servers?
A. Your Windows Small Business Server 2003 CALs cover you for any additional
Windows-based servers in the domain. You do not need to buy additional CALs
for them."
That supports what I was told on the phone, i.e., "...you can have an
unlimited number of other servers, and if they are 2000 or 2003, they can be
DCs or member servers." The phrase "...any additional Windows-based servers
....." places no limit on the number of servers that can be added, and three
Microsoft licensing people told me that was correct.
One guy pointed out a licensing doc that clearly stated that no CAL is
consumed or required, but damned if I can find it again.
Gregg Hill
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@your.nellie> wrote in message
news:eBIwzAw5FHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | the question is quite plainly answered in the SBS FAQ's on the MS site.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/techinfo/overview/generalfaq.mspx#ELHAC
Networking and Security
Q.What number and types of servers can exist in the Windows Small Business
Server 2003 domain?
A.There are no limits on the number or type of servers that can exist in a
Windows Small Business Server 2003 domain, with the following exceptions:
.Only one computer in a domain can be running Windows Small Business
Server 2003.
.Windows Small Business Server 2003 must be the root of the Active
Directory forest.
.Windows Small Business Server 2003 cannot trust any other domains.
.A Windows Small Business Server 2003 domain cannot have any child
domains.
.Each additional computer running Windows Server 2003 must have a Windows
Small Business Server 2003 client access license (CAL).
.A Windows Small Business Server 2003 domain can have no more than 75
CALs. You can use CALs for each user or for each device.
although it doesn't mention it, 2000 servers are subject to the exact same
advice.
"kj" <kj@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uUdisun5FHA.1464@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I need to call the MS Licensing folks about a SQL thing, maybe I'll pose
this as a piggy back just to see what they say.
It's the "...or other electronic device" verbiage that seems, well, vague
to me.
;-)
* "Device Software" allows a single personal
computer, workstation, terminal, handheld
computer, pager, telephone, personal digital
assistant, or other electronic device
("Device") to access or use the Server
Software.
--
/kj
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%23CK0$um5FHA.204@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I just KNEW someone was going to say that! In that case, the server is
NOT a device, since the EULA does not include "server" anywhere in the
description of a CLIENT Access License, and according to Microsoft, in an
SBS 2003 domain, there is "no such thing" as a server-to-server license..
The user would require a CAL, though, to be legal.
Gregg Hill
"kj" <kj@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:u9yL34j5FHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Of course when a user logs on to a member server using a domain account
then they become an authenticating user and server becomes a device and
really muddies all the waters. ( just don't do it!)
--
/kj
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ONKGz4h5FHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Ronnie,
No, that is incorrect. Per the three different people I spoke to at
MS, there is no such thing as a server-to-server license. The key here
is that the SBS CALs are CLIENT Access Licenses. Other servers on the
network are NOT clients in Microsoft's eyes. I have been told by three
people at Microsoft that you can buy a base SBS 2003 with its five
licenses and add an UNLIMITED number of other servers, NONE of which
consumes an SBS CLIENT Access License.
Per the EULA, a "device" is described as "...a single personal
computer, workstation, terminal, handheld computer, pager, telephone,
personal digital assistant, or other electronic device ("Device")..."
Again, there is no such thing as a server-to-server access license in
an SBS 2003 domain. Other servers are not considered to be a "device"
and do not require a license, other than the server license used to
install the server software itself (Windows NT4 Server, 2000 Server,
or Server 2003). The additional servers can be member servers, and if
they are 2000 or 2003, they can be domain controllers.
From the FAQ you posted:
Q. I want to have additional Windows-based servers in my Windows Small
Business Server 2003 domain. Do I need CALs for those servers?
A. Your Windows Small Business Server 2003 CALs cover you for any
additional Windows-based servers in the domain. You do not need to buy
additional CALs for them.
Per that statement and the multiple clarifications I have gotten for
Microsoft, you are covered for "any additional Windows-based servers"
in the domain. "Any" and all additional servers. "You do not need to
buy additional CALs for them." You can have 75 CALs, with 75 users and
devices, and have 200 other servers, all covered because they reside
in the SBS 2003 domain. "You do not need to buy additional CALs for
them."
No CAL required per additional server. Final answer!
Gregg Hill
"RG strath.ac.uk>" <ronnie.gibson<ATSIGN> wrote in message
news:eRbj90d5FHA.2396@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:e6iYgqa5FHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
According to Microsoft, there is no such thing as a server-to-server
license, and SBS 2003 CALs cover ALL additional servers, even if you
have 100's of them. The additional servers do NOT consume an SBS
CAL.
Gregg,
I'd imagine those licenses would be termed as 'Device CALs' rather
than
server-to-server licenses.
The confusion on this topic always seems to centre over the ambiguous
statement that additional server on the SBS network don't require any
CALs.
The conclusion usually reached is that while users don't require
additional
CALs to access the additional Windows Server (as they would in a
non-SBS
environment), the server itself does consume one CAL.
So one CAL per additional server but no user CALs required for users
to
access those servers.
Hope that helps,
Ronnie
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kj
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:50 am Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
"an answer"? I'd expect you'd get at least two. ;-)
--
/kj
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:u$7ejl15FHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | I emailed a Microsoft rep with whom I met a couple days ago. Anxiously
awaiting an answer.
Gregg Hill
"RG strath.ac.uk>" <ronnie.gibson<ATSIGN> wrote in message
news:%23L6cMbq5FHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ONKGz4h5FHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
No CAL required per additional server. Final answer!
OK - now I'm confused as well :)
Your explanation made sense but previous discussions I've read here have
concluded with 'one CAL per additional server'.
Could some MS bod get one of their colleagues in licensing to post
official
confirmation of Microsoft's position on this?
Ronnie
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperGumby [SBS MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:50 am Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
the link you provide does NOT contradict the FAQ, no additional CAL is
required to access the additional servers. The additional servers however
require a CAL to access SBS.
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%23a%23S9k15FHA.2716@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | "Quite plainly answered" one way in one FAQ and the exact opposite way in
another FAQ.
According to the three Microsoft licensing people with whom I spoke, I can
add unlimited NT, 2000, or 2003 members servers to an SBS 2003 domain, and
they said that the 2000 or 2003 servers can also be domain controllers. I
have SBS 2003 domains set up with NT4 member servers, some with 2000
member servers, and some with 2003 domain controllers. The Microsoft
licensing department explained that there "...is no such thing as a
server-to-server CAL..." in an SBS 2003 domain. Per the FAQ at
http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsServer2003/sbs/techinfo/overview/licensingfaq.mspx:
"Q. I want to have additional Windows-based servers in my Windows Small
Business Server 2003 domain. Do I need CALs for those servers?
A. Your Windows Small Business Server 2003 CALs cover you for any
additional Windows-based servers in the domain. You do not need to buy
additional CALs for them."
That supports what I was told on the phone, i.e., "...you can have an
unlimited number of other servers, and if they are 2000 or 2003, they can
be DCs or member servers." The phrase "...any additional Windows-based
servers ...." places no limit on the number of servers that can be added,
and three Microsoft licensing people told me that was correct.
One guy pointed out a licensing doc that clearly stated that no CAL is
consumed or required, but damned if I can find it again.
Gregg Hill
"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@your.nellie> wrote in message
news:eBIwzAw5FHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
the question is quite plainly answered in the SBS FAQ's on the MS site.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/techinfo/overview/generalfaq.mspx#ELHAC
Networking and Security
Q.What number and types of servers can exist in the Windows Small
Business Server 2003 domain?
A.There are no limits on the number or type of servers that can exist in
a Windows Small Business Server 2003 domain, with the following
exceptions:
.Only one computer in a domain can be running Windows Small Business
Server 2003.
.Windows Small Business Server 2003 must be the root of the Active
Directory forest.
.Windows Small Business Server 2003 cannot trust any other domains.
.A Windows Small Business Server 2003 domain cannot have any child
domains.
.Each additional computer running Windows Server 2003 must have a Windows
Small Business Server 2003 client access license (CAL).
.A Windows Small Business Server 2003 domain can have no more than 75
CALs. You can use CALs for each user or for each device.
although it doesn't mention it, 2000 servers are subject to the exact
same advice.
"kj" <kj@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uUdisun5FHA.1464@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I need to call the MS Licensing folks about a SQL thing, maybe I'll pose
this as a piggy back just to see what they say.
It's the "...or other electronic device" verbiage that seems, well,
vague to me.
;-)
* "Device Software" allows a single personal
computer, workstation, terminal, handheld
computer, pager, telephone, personal digital
assistant, or other electronic device
("Device") to access or use the Server
Software.
--
/kj
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:%23CK0$um5FHA.204@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I just KNEW someone was going to say that! In that case, the server is
NOT a device, since the EULA does not include "server" anywhere in the
description of a CLIENT Access License, and according to Microsoft, in
an SBS 2003 domain, there is "no such thing" as a server-to-server
license.. The user would require a CAL, though, to be legal.
Gregg Hill
"kj" <kj@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:u9yL34j5FHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Of course when a user logs on to a member server using a domain
account then they become an authenticating user and server becomes a
device and really muddies all the waters. ( just don't do it!)
--
/kj
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ONKGz4h5FHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Ronnie,
No, that is incorrect. Per the three different people I spoke to at
MS, there is no such thing as a server-to-server license. The key
here is that the SBS CALs are CLIENT Access Licenses. Other servers
on the network are NOT clients in Microsoft's eyes. I have been told
by three people at Microsoft that you can buy a base SBS 2003 with
its five licenses and add an UNLIMITED number of other servers, NONE
of which consumes an SBS CLIENT Access License.
Per the EULA, a "device" is described as "...a single personal
computer, workstation, terminal, handheld computer, pager, telephone,
personal digital assistant, or other electronic device ("Device")..."
Again, there is no such thing as a server-to-server access license in
an SBS 2003 domain. Other servers are not considered to be a "device"
and do not require a license, other than the server license used to
install the server software itself (Windows NT4 Server, 2000 Server,
or Server 2003). The additional servers can be member servers, and if
they are 2000 or 2003, they can be domain controllers.
From the FAQ you posted:
Q. I want to have additional Windows-based servers in my Windows
Small Business Server 2003 domain. Do I need CALs for those servers?
A. Your Windows Small Business Server 2003 CALs cover you for any
additional Windows-based servers in the domain. You do not need to
buy additional CALs for them.
Per that statement and the multiple clarifications I have gotten for
Microsoft, you are covered for "any additional Windows-based servers"
in the domain. "Any" and all additional servers. "You do not need to
buy additional CALs for them." You can have 75 CALs, with 75 users
and devices, and have 200 other servers, all covered because they
reside in the SBS 2003 domain. "You do not need to buy additional
CALs for them."
No CAL required per additional server. Final answer!
Gregg Hill
"RG strath.ac.uk>" <ronnie.gibson<ATSIGN> wrote in message
news:eRbj90d5FHA.2396@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:e6iYgqa5FHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
According to Microsoft, there is no such thing as a
server-to-server license, and SBS 2003 CALs cover ALL additional
servers, even if you have 100's of them. The additional servers do
NOT consume an SBS CAL.
Gregg,
I'd imagine those licenses would be termed as 'Device CALs' rather
than
server-to-server licenses.
The confusion on this topic always seems to centre over the
ambiguous
statement that additional server on the SBS network don't require
any CALs.
The conclusion usually reached is that while users don't require
additional
CALs to access the additional Windows Server (as they would in a
non-SBS
environment), the server itself does consume one CAL.
So one CAL per additional server but no user CALs required for users
to
access those servers.
Hope that helps,
Ronnie
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in