A follow up to this thread. In the Windows Server 2008 Licensing FAQ: Q. Are there any differences between the requirements for CALs in Windows Server 2003 versus Windows Server 2008? A. No. The Windows Server CAL requirements are the same.
Which leads me to believe that there were no changes to how the anonymous vs. identified web user is considered regarding CAL requirements. - Andy O. ________________________________________ From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:07 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Client licenses for web apps (was: AD in the DMZ) I looked back at the 2K3 stuff and it looks similar, not sure if it actually is a change or just a clarification for 2K8. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/caloverview.ms px Note the following general exception to Windows CAL requirements: Windows CALs are not required when access to the server software is unauthenticated and conducted through the Internet. Authenticated access is defined as an exchange of user or application credentials between the server software and a user or device. An example of this exception would be if *unidentified* (emphasis mine) users browsed your public Web site. Windows CALs would not be required for those users. - Andy O. >-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 9:34 AM >To: NT System Admin Issues >Subject: RE: Client licenses for web apps (was: AD in the DMZ) > >What about for those of us still on 2K3? I noticed that reference was >for 08. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
