This month they're called LSP - Licensing Solutions Partner. šŸ˜€

Sent from a mobile device

> On Mar 21, 2016, at 9:10 PM, Jason Sandys <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Honestly, unless you are selling them the licenses, it’s not yours to advise 
> on anyway. This is question they need to address to the LAR (or whatever the 
> Lars are called now).
> 
> J
> 
> From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Jay Parekh 
> <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Date: Monday, March 21, 2016 at 5:49 PM
> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [mssms] SQL Licensing with SCCM
> 
> I got this from a MS Datacenter SSP
>  
> "Same rules apply to MBAM as do System Center in regards to Management 
> Components and SQL."
> 
> So if MBAM is integrated with SCCM, it seems it should be okay.  But I'm 
> really not comfortable stating that to a client without some official 
> statement if I can find it.  I don't want them getting a SAM engagement later 
> and it comes back to bite me :)
>  
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [mssms] SQL Licensing with SCCM
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:21:09 +0000
> 
> It’s not complete confirmation but I was able to find this on MS:
>  
> ā€œIf you are using ZTI and/or UDI, you are allowed to add the MDT SQL database 
> to any version of System Center Configuration Manager with SQL Technology; if 
> you are using LTI, you must use a separately licensed SQL Server product to 
> host your MDT SQL database.ā€
>  
> Here:
>  
> It’s the first time I’ve ever seen anything allowed to co-exist on the SQL 
> Tech SKU. Notable that LTI doesn’t qualify.
>  
> David---
>  
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
> On Behalf Of David Baldwin
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 6:12 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [mssms] SQL Licensing with SCCM
>  
> Jay,
>  
> We learned once upon a time in a licensing class that the CM with SQL Tech 
> license could not be used to host any other DB, MS or otherwise. It may have 
> changed but this was post System Center licensing consolidation. Maybe if 
> there’s an ATS on the list they can verify.
>  
> Thanks!
>  
> David---
>  
> From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
> On Behalf Of Jay Parekh
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 4:41 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [mssms] SQL Licensing with SCCM
>  
> Sorry if this is a duplicate.  Didn't see it come back in my inbox so wasn't 
> 100% it went out.
>  
>  
> Good morning.  We all know there is a SQL license that comes with the System 
> Center purchase.  Do you know if it’s okay (legally) to add the MBAM db to 
> the same SQL server where the SCCM database is? 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> Legal Notice: This email is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is 
> addressed. If you are not an intended recipient and have received this 
> message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this 
> email or calling +44(0) 2083269015 (UK) or +1 866 592 4214 (USA). This email 
> and any attachments may be privileged and/or confidential. The unauthorized 
> use, disclosure, copying or printing of any information it contains is 
> strictly prohibited. The opinions expressed in this email are those of the 
> author and do not necessarily represent the views of 1E Ltd. Nothing in this 
> email will operate to bind 1E to any order or other contract.
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Legal Notice: This email is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is 
> addressed. If you are not an intended recipient and have received this 
> message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this 
> email or calling +44(0) 2083269015 (UK) or +1 866 592 4214(USA). This email 
> and any attachments may be privileged and/or confidential. The unauthorized 
> use, disclosure, copying or printing of any information it contains is 
> strictly prohibited. The opinions expressed in this email are those of the 
> author and do not necessarily represent the views of 1E Ltd. Nothing in this 
> email will operate to bind 1E to any order or other contract.
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to