As a consultant to this client (not using their exchange) do i require
a windows CAL for Administration tasks?
thanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ?
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 00:49:25 +0000
Unless they have a reason to believe you are lying, yes, it is that easy.
It’s called “true up”.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *J- P
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 1, 2014 8:40 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ?
Wow, just got off the phone with them and I told the rep,
"company has 62 users, we have 60 cals for 2012 and ex 2013 & 35
outlook licenses (All purchased through VL) and the desktops are are
all OEM w7"
And I added "there is a legacy app on pc with office 97, that we have
no clue where the disc/sleeve is"
He replied ,"just purchase the additional CAL's , have an officer sign
the form, send it as PDF and we're done"
Really? that easy? is it because the company is so small, or did they
just revamp or did I just step in #$%^ ?
I replied "you'll have it by the end of the week"
Jean-Paul Natola
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 16:41:20 -0500
Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ?
I went through a Microsoft SAM audit in 2012. Started in April and
ended in September. I’ve been with the same company for 15 years and
good documentation saved us on a few things. In the end we had to
purchase a few licenses. If you have any questions along the way, I’d
be happy to try and answer them.
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *J- P
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 01, 2014 2:40 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ?
Thanks for the clarification, and I appreciate the feedback , for once
i actually interpreted something correclty from MS licensing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ?
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 19:28:21 +0000
That’s not the way on-premises Exchange licensing works. It’s per-user
or per-device. Just like Server CALs. It doesn’t matter how many
mailboxes there are. Or how many AD accounts there are.
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Heaton,
Joseph@Wildlife
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 1, 2014 2:45 PM
*To:* '[email protected]'
*Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ?
Or, if there’s only one person that any of those applies to, you could
set them up as DLs… not ideal, but it would work and not count against
licensing.
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Art DeKneef
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 01, 2014 11:15 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ?
What does the version of Exchange Product Use Rights they are using
say? These would be considered shared mailboxes?
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *J- P
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 1, 2014 10:51 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ?
So I started my audit on the client site with Exchange, and I noticed
that they created all mail accounts as user mailboxes;
For instance, warehouse@, jobs@ , dropbox@, voicemail@ etc...
My question is will this be scrutinized and will MS say "it's a user
box, therefore it requires a CAL"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ?
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:58:15 +0000
Doesn’t matter.
Buried in the legalese of license agreements, MS states that they can
request this info at any time… And all associated costs are the
customer’s responsibility.
As long as you are not intentionally violating their licensing, they
are not out to punish/fine you - just get you legit.
In any case, good luck.
Source: went through this exact thing in ’12.
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *J- P
*Sent:* Monday, March 31, 2014 12:38 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ?
One thing I'm sure the client will note is;
"MS_Rep_Name" will contact Business_Name to discuss the internal self
audit, SHOULD YOUR ORG ELECT TO ENGAGE OUTSIDE RESOURCES O ASSIST YOU
IN THE INTERNAL AUDIT MICROSOFT NOT FUND THOSE RESOURCES"
Jean-Paul Natola
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ?
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:28:03 +0000
Vs. doing it free? Absolutely.
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *J- P
*Sent:* Monday, March 31, 2014 12:05 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ?
Being a consultant to them, would you make this a billable task?
Jean-Paul Natola
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:56:23 -0400
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ?
Be prepared for a hair pulling experience. When we did the "It's not
an audit, we're here to
help you manage your licenses" they ended up doing lots of aggravating
things. Stuff like
not wanting to accept the idea that OEM XP licenses on a bunch of old
HP machines were
valid since neither our accounting or the reseller's records went back
far enough to be
able to produce an invoice. I think they finally dropped that when we
came up with an
email acknowledgement from the purchase and took pictures of a number
of the COA
stickers on some of the boxes. Then there was them saying we needed to
purchase
something like 20 cores of SQL Server 2012. We were running 2008r2,
properly licensed
and even with the 2012 transition, we were still properly licensed. I
ended up quoting them
the relevant sections from the SQL 2012 licensing document about a
dozen times before
they got it. There was several other dumb things.
I've heard that this is being driven from the sales side of Microsoft
as a revenue enhancement
tool. I didn't see anything that would make me think that's not the case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all
One of my new clients called me and said they received a letter
via Fedex from MS, regarding licensing. In my 15+ years I have
never had that occur before , I asked them to email me the letter
so I can take a look at it.
They only recently (within the last year) gone to Volume Licensing
for Windows/Exchange/outlook and TS cals/licensing, all desktops
are desktops are OEM licensed.
They are also a small company (maybe 40 desktops ) and a handful
of servers.
Has anyone on here ever been contacted in this manner?
Jean-Paul Natola
--
Thanks,
Joe Matuscak | Director of Technology
*Rohrer Corporation* | Office: 330-335-1541
717 Seville Road | Wadsworth, Ohio 44281
www.rohrer.com <http://www.rohrer.com> | /A Better Package/
.
