| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Podge
Support Moderator
Ireland
3776 Posts |
 Posted - 07 November 2005 : 18:51:20
|
I understand your point HuwR and I wish it was that way but its not. From the CAL End User Licence Agreement.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/serverpluscal.mspx
quote:
SQL Server 2000 Client Access License Requirements. CALs that you acquire may be used only in conjunction with your Server Software.
You must acquire a separate CAL for each unique individual person (“User”) or Device that:
• accesses or otherwise utilizes the services of the Server Software (including Devices using MSDE for such access),
<<snipped>>
My interpretation is that forum visitors are utilising the services of the SQL Server and therefore need to be licenced.
Microsoft refer to this as "multiplexing" - http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/multiplexing.mspx
quote:
Use of such multiplexing or pooling hardware and/or software does not reduce the number of client access licenses (CALs) required to access or use SQL Server software. A CAL is required for each distinct device or user to the multiplexing or pooling software or hardware front end. This remains true no matter how many tiers of hardware or software exist between the server running SQL Server and the client devices that ultimately use its data, services, or functionality.
|
Podge.
The Hunger Site - Click to donate free food | My Blog | Snitz 3.4.05 AutoInstall (Beta!)
My Mods: CAPTCHA Mod | GateKeeper Mod
Tutorial: Enable subscriptions on your board
Warning: The post above or below may contain nuts. |
 |
|
|
ruirib
Snitz Forums Admin
Portugal
26364 Posts |
Posted - 07 November 2005 : 19:07:19
|
| I'm definitely no expert on licencing, but I would say that a device CAL, (using the server / Device licensing) would account exactly for what HuwR explained. So, if you have a web server accessing the SQL Server under server / device CAL scheme, that would account for a single CAL, regardless of the number of users accessing the website. |
Snitz 3.4 Readme | Like the support? Support Snitz too |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20600 Posts |
Posted - 08 November 2005 : 03:48:52
|
ok, look at it this way, how does your SQL server know how many people are using it when all it does know about is the connection?
It doesn't, it just has a connection, so there is absolutely no way the sql server knows there are 12 users or 1, it can only count the number of connections not the number of actual people, therefore MS CAL licensing does not actually mean anything.
That is why it has a per processor licensing scheme. |
|
|
|
MarcelG
Retired Support Moderator
Netherlands
2625 Posts |
Posted - 08 November 2005 : 03:57:30
|
It's an interesting point which needs some investigation. I will contact MS with the following simple question ;
quote:
In the following scenario, would the 'Server License + Device CAL' licensing method be correct ?
3 IIS Webservers with (>10) virtual websites per webserver running ASP and ASP.net applications which all use SQL databases on a central dual CPU SQL 2005 Server.
License model ; 1 SQL Server Standard Edition 2005 license + 3 device CALS for the IIS servers.
I'll let you know what MS sais. |
portfolio - linkshrinker - oxle - twitter |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20600 Posts |
Posted - 08 November 2005 : 03:59:36
|
| I don't think I will be upgrading for a while though, not at 6000 USD per processor |
|
|
|
MarcelG
Retired Support Moderator
Netherlands
2625 Posts |
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20600 Posts |
Posted - 08 November 2005 : 04:04:19
|
MarcelG,
the answer to your question would be NO, you should use SQL with processor licensing since according to MS it is the only license optimised for web access , this is called their get out clause since there is no way to effectively police the CAL in this situation
The point I am trying to make is that technically it would be fine since SQL would never know you had exceeded your CAL. |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20600 Posts |
Posted - 08 November 2005 : 04:06:14
|
| it is just another example of MS stupid draconian licensing system |
|
|
|
pdrg
Support Moderator
United Kingdom
2897 Posts |
|
|
Podge
Support Moderator
Ireland
3776 Posts |
|
|
MarcelG
Retired Support Moderator
Netherlands
2625 Posts |
Posted - 08 November 2005 : 07:47:18
|
Yep, got the same response from MS Netherlands. bah...
But indeed, there's nothing witholding you technically speaking from using the server license plus device cals.
By the way, what Podge said is very much true ; there are many bankrupt companies out there with lots of licenses  They're just as good as a regular license, just 'a bit' cheaper. (However, I don't think there will be many bankrupt companies with SQL 2005 licenses yet... ) |
portfolio - linkshrinker - oxle - twitter |
|
|
|
Podge
Support Moderator
Ireland
3776 Posts |
|
|
mios
Junior Member
United Kingdom
101 Posts |
|
|
MarcelG
Retired Support Moderator
Netherlands
2625 Posts |
|
|
AnonJr
Moderator
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 08 November 2005 : 10:01:16
|
Definatly going to download this when I get home. Thanks for the heads up.  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
We'll see what they say.