| Author |
Message |
Mike Hunt
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:26 am Post subject:
sbs CAL's |
|
|
Hi there,
Im going to upgrade from sbs2000 to sbs2003 premium and also add 2 more win
2003 servers. I will have about 18 users on my network but Im purchasing 25
CAL's... do I have to buy more cal's for the other 2 servers? They will be
used as a file server and the other a webserver...
thanks
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chris
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:37 am Post subject:
RE: sbs CAL's |
|
|
Each of the other servers will need one SBS2003 CAL. Thats all. In your case
with 18 users + 2 servers = 20 SBS 2003 CALs - leaving you 5 to grow on.
Chris
"Mike Hunt" wrote:
| Quote: | Hi there,
Im going to upgrade from sbs2000 to sbs2003 premium and also add 2 more win
2003 servers. I will have about 18 users on my network but Im purchasing 25
CAL's... do I have to buy more cal's for the other 2 servers? They will be
used as a file server and the other a webserver...
thanks
Mike
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dirk-Thomas Brown
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:39 am Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
Each member server uses one SBS call but the file sharing etc.. is covered
by SBS so no individual (for said servers) cals are required. Per your
statement you require 20 cals, 18 for your users and 2 for the additional
servers.
Dirk-Thomas
"Mike Hunt" <ncc4@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uK0NI8Z5FHA.2364@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Hi there,
Im going to upgrade from sbs2000 to sbs2003 premium and also add 2 more
win 2003 servers. I will have about 18 users on my network but Im
purchasing 25 CAL's... do I have to buy more cal's for the other 2
servers? They will be used as a file server and the other a webserver...
thanks
Mike
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gregg Hill
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:50 am Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
According to the several calls I made to Microsoft, that is incorrect. Other
servers do NOT require or take an SBS CAL, since they are not considered
devices or users for the purpose of SBS licensing.
You can have an unlimited number of other servers, and if they are 2000 or
2003, they can be DCs or member servers.
Gregg Hill
"Chris" <Chris@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0F68866E-4069-486A-8E43-112D104788E2@microsoft.com...
| Quote: | Each of the other servers will need one SBS2003 CAL. Thats all. In your
case
with 18 users + 2 servers = 20 SBS 2003 CALs - leaving you 5 to grow on.
Chris
"Mike Hunt" wrote:
Hi there,
Im going to upgrade from sbs2000 to sbs2003 premium and also add 2 more
win
2003 servers. I will have about 18 users on my network but Im purchasing
25
CAL's... do I have to buy more cal's for the other 2 servers? They will
be
used as a file server and the other a webserver...
thanks
Mike
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gregg Hill
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:50 am Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
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 Hill
"Dirk-Thomas Brown" <youhadtoask@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eIAXuha5FHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Each member server uses one SBS call but the file sharing etc.. is covered
by SBS so no individual (for said servers) cals are required. Per your
statement you require 20 cals, 18 for your users and 2 for the additional
servers.
Dirk-Thomas
"Mike Hunt" <ncc4@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uK0NI8Z5FHA.2364@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Hi there,
Im going to upgrade from sbs2000 to sbs2003 premium and also add 2 more
win 2003 servers. I will have about 18 users on my network but Im
purchasing 25 CAL's... do I have to buy more cal's for the other 2
servers? They will be used as a file server and the other a webserver...
thanks
Mike
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dhow
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:50 pm Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
So if I'm going to publish new server that'll act as new Domain Controllers
in Win SBS 2003 domain, all I have to buy is just 5 additional CAL for users
to logon into that particular server? Even though, like in Mike Hunt case
where he has 18 users in his business environment?
What the diffrence between user CAL & device CAL, and how to determine which
one I've choose/take in Win SBS 2003?
| Quote: | 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 |
|
|
RG
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:50 pm Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
"Gregg Hill" <bogus@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:e6iYgqa5FHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | 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 |
|
|
RG
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:50 pm Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
"Dhow" <Dhow@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D14CF5B8-0538-4AAD-9516-2C6A9D8F2ABA@microsoft.com...
| Quote: | So if I'm going to publish new server that'll act as new Domain
Controllers
in Win SBS 2003 domain, all I have to buy is just 5 additional CAL for
users
to logon into that particular server? Even though, like in Mike Hunt case
where he has 18 users in his business environment?
|
You just need one CAL for the new server, doesn't matter how many users you
have.
| Quote: | What the diffrence between user CAL & device CAL, and how to determine
which
one I've choose/take in Win SBS 2003?
|
Check out this page - I think it should deal with all your questions:
http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsServer2003/sbs/techinfo/overview/licensingfaq.mspx
Cheers
Ronnie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gregg Hill
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:50 pm Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
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...
| Quote: |
"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:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:50 pm Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
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...
| Quote: | 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:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:58 am Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
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...
| Quote: | 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:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:50 am Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
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...
| Quote: | 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:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:50 am Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
I sure wish someone from the Microsoft licensing department would jump in
here and clarify this once and for all.
Gregg Hill
"Owen Williams" <Owen@NoSpam_CVTCLLC.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dddf249f73c4a149896c0@news.microsoft.com...
| Quote: | Follow-up: Here is the reference on Microsoft's web site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/techinfo/overview/general
faq.mspx
[See first Q&A under NETWORKING and SECURITY]
-- Owen
In article <uKk7jpa5FHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, bogus@nowhere.com
says...
According to the several calls I made to Microsoft, that is incorrect.
Other
servers do NOT require or take an SBS CAL, since they are not considered
devices or users for the purpose of SBS licensing.
You can have an unlimited number of other servers, and if they are 2000
or
2003, they can be DCs or member servers.
Gregg Hill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Owen Williams
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:50 am Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
Follow-up: Here is the reference on Microsoft's web site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/techinfo/overview/general
faq.mspx
[See first Q&A under NETWORKING and SECURITY]
-- Owen
In article <uKk7jpa5FHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, bogus@nowhere.com
says...
| Quote: | According to the several calls I made to Microsoft, that is incorrect. Other
servers do NOT require or take an SBS CAL, since they are not considered
devices or users for the purpose of SBS licensing.
You can have an unlimited number of other servers, and if they are 2000 or
2003, they can be DCs or member servers.
Gregg Hill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Owen Williams
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:50 am Post subject:
Re: sbs CAL's |
|
|
Well, it appears Microsoft itself is not clear on this point.
Example 1:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs/brows
e_frm/thread/19c4b7e928aa26ca/bfad0442b0d45740?lnk=st&q=SBS+device+CAL+%
22member+server%22&rnum=2&hl=en#bfad0442b0d45740
[Specifically item 2e: "Each additional computer running Windows Server
2003 must have a Windows Small Business Server 2003 client access
license (CAL)."]
Example 2: As one of many people preparing for Small Business Specialist
certification, I know licensing is covered in several exam prep venues.
ALL of the sample questions I've seen which include member servers
specify that a member server (or DC) take up one device CAL. In other
words, if I answered in a way that the non-SBS server did not take up an
SBS device CAL, I would have gotten the answer wrong.
So, I guess I'm still confused ...
-- Owen
In article <uKk7jpa5FHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, bogus@nowhere.com
says...
| Quote: | According to the several calls I made to Microsoft, that is incorrect. Other
servers do NOT require or take an SBS CAL, since they are not considered
devices or users for the purpose of SBS licensing.
You can have an unlimited number of other servers, and if they are 2000 or
2003, they can be DCs or member servers.
Gregg Hill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in