That is PRECISELY why I recommended he called Microsoft Licensing and document the call.
As long as Microsoft has given you a documentable answer, you are freed from "penalties". That doesn't mean if they "change their mind" you don't have to "true up", but you've given a reasonable effort to find an appropriate answer and gotten a specific resolution from the vendor via an authorized representative. In most countries - that is sufficient CYA. ________________________________________ From: Ben Scott [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 3:28 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: CAL Licensing Question! On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Brian Clark<[email protected]> wrote: > MS said that putting in 10 Device CALS for the computers in Domain B would > be enough. Domain A computers/Users accessing Domain B would not need > additional CAL's as they are accessing SQL Express! I'm a little surprised at that. Microsoft generally takes the hard line that any access, direct or indirect, via authenticated (NTLM or Kerb ticket) connection, requires a CAL. But then, I've also found the answers vary depending on what random rep answers the phone. And this is for their own licensing. *hurumph* In general, unless you have more than 60 clients, I would suggest just converting all the CALs to per-client and assigning them that way. A CAL assigned to a client is good for that client to access to any server. A CAL assigned to a server is good for only that server. The only benefit to that is you can oversubscribe the server's licenses, i.e., if you have 80 clients but no more than 50 will connect at one time. But unless you worried about a licensing audit, I'd stick with Microsoft's verbal answer. It's cheaper. :) -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
