We received an extension.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Sam Cayze <[email protected]> wrote: > You guys jinxed me, I just got a letter a few days ago too. > > Here's the kicker, the contact assigned to my case won't return my emails > or > phone calls. > > They only gave me to the end of the month to finish the audit. > Normally that would be ok, but I'm a 1 man IT shop, SWAMPED with an XP > 7 > migration that I'm desperately trying to finish before the next patch > Tuesday. > Not only that, but our license counts/usage are changing everyday due to > the > that. > > Ever heard of companies getting an extension? I would hope in this case > they'd grant one... since I'm busy doing what they are begging/forcing > companies to do. > > Tia, > Sam > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] > On Behalf Of Susan Bradley > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 8:04 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] SOT: Letter from MS, legitimacy ? > > > http://blogs.technet.com/b/volume-licensing/archive/2014/03/10/licensing-how > -to-when-do-i-need-a-client-access-license-cal.aspx > > *7 - Do I need CALs for my administrators?* > > Server software licensed using CALs permits up to 2 users or devices to > access the server software for the purposes of administration without CALs. > However, if your administrators also use the software for anything other > than administration (for example, they check their email), CALs will be > required for them as well. > > > > On 4/1/2014 5:53 PM, J- P wrote: > > 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/ > > > > > > . > > > > -- > Got your CryptoLocker prevention in place? > http://www.thirdtier.net/2013/10/cryptolocker-prevention-kit-updates/ > Only one more patching days of XP.... are you ready? > > > > > > >
