Re: Licensing question

2011-03-15 Thread Tom Miller
We purchase enough licenses so that each person who will potentially access the 
MS application has a license.  So we purchase fewer licenses of MS 
Visio/Project/Access than the general MS Office Standard Suite.  Access to 
those applications is limited to a number of staff in a special group, which we 
have configured for Citrix XenApp access.  So users who don't have a license 
don't even see the app.
 
I think this is correct; I called MS licensing about it.  You can inquire at 
microsoft.com/licensing.  Who knows, MS licensing seems to change every day.  
And if you are using virtual desktops, each Win 7 license comes with a virtual 
license too.  But I don't know if that applies to MS applications.
 
Microsoft Licensing = Obfuscation.
 
Tom


 James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com 3/15/2011 8:51 AM 

Am I right in assuming that MS desktop applications are all licensed on a 
per-device basis? We have 70 licenses for Project which are available to users 
coming through a Citrix infrastructure, with 1900 endpoints. Now, given that 
each endpoint logs on to a Citrix server where Project is available as a 
streamed app, is it correct that I would need 1900 licenses for Project, even 
though the application is restricted on a per-group basis to 70 users only?

A document I received from AppSense seems to confirm these suspicions. I could 
use Appsense's Application Manager suite to restrict the execution of Project 
to 70 named devices, which apparently would conform with Microsoft's per-device 
licensing rules, but this would also create a big issue with my current 
client's push towards hot-desking as a solution for its mobile employees. Is 
there any way of complying with MS's per-device licensing rules in a Terminal 
Services environment where mobile users are required to log on at any machine, 
or will I have to a) bite the bullet and shell out for 1900 licenses, or b) 
restrict my endpoints to 70 Project-enabled workstations?

I also have my suspicion that users' home machines with access to the Project 
application via VPN may also be classed as endpoints by MS for licensing 
purposes. Is this also correct?


TIA,



JRR

-- 
On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the 
machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly 
to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) 
named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or 
unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of 
humour or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, 
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorised 
(either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas.

Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere 
other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or no grammatical use 
and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, 
although the kelpie next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. 
Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to 
learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning 
backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft.

However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer 
you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received 
this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk and place in 
a warm oven for 40 minutes.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
Confidentiality Notice:  This e-mail message, including attachments, is for the 
sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or 
distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
message.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Licensing question

2011-03-15 Thread James Rankin
Hmmm. I don't know whether AppSense are trying to pull the wool over my eyes
then. They sent me this document

http://www.appsense.com/Files/Documents/Microsoft%20Application%20License%20Control%20%28US%29.pdf

which seems to indicate that *how the network is set up and how access is
provided to Microsoft application software has no impact on the licensing of
the application itself*.

Maybe they are just trying to get me to buy into their suitewhich is not
really necessary, seeing as though we already have 2000 licenses for it.

Might be time to get onto MS directly.

On 15 March 2011 13:00, Tom Miller tmil...@hnncsb.org wrote:

  We purchase enough licenses so that each person who will potentially
 access the MS application has a license.  So we purchase fewer licenses of
 MS Visio/Project/Access than the general MS Office Standard Suite.  Access
 to those applications is limited to a number of staff in a special group,
 which we have configured for Citrix XenApp access.  So users who don't have
 a license don't even see the app.

 I think this is correct; I called MS licensing about it.  You can inquire
 at microsoft.com/licensing.  Who knows, MS licensing seems to change every
 day.  And if you are using virtual desktops, each Win 7 license comes with a
 virtual license too.  But I don't know if that applies to MS applications.

 Microsoft Licensing = Obfuscation.

 Tom


  James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com 3/15/2011 8:51 AM 

 Am I right in assuming that MS desktop applications are all licensed on a
 per-device basis? We have 70 licenses for Project which are available to
 users coming through a Citrix infrastructure, with 1900 endpoints. Now,
 given that each endpoint logs on to a Citrix server where Project is
 available as a streamed app, is it correct that I would need 1900 licenses
 for Project, even though the application is restricted on a per-group basis
 to 70 users only?

 A document I received from AppSense seems to confirm these suspicions. I
 could use Appsense's Application Manager suite to restrict the execution of
 Project to 70 named devices, which apparently would conform with Microsoft's
 per-device licensing rules, but this would also create a big issue with my
 current client's push towards hot-desking as a solution for its mobile
 employees. Is there any way of complying with MS's per-device licensing
 rules in a Terminal Services environment where mobile users are required to
 log on at any machine, or will I have to a) bite the bullet and shell out
 for 1900 licenses, or b) restrict my endpoints to 70 Project-enabled
 workstations?

 I also have my suspicion that users' home machines with access to the
 Project application via VPN may also be classed as endpoints by MS for
 licensing purposes. Is this also correct?


 TIA,



 JRR

 --
 On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
 the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
 rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
 a question.

 *IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
 addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential,
 privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem,
 no sense of humour or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the
 intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email
 is not authorised (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an
 irritating social faux pas.

 Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context
 somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or no
 grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the
 transmission of this email, although the kelpie next door is living on
 borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of
 the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message
 revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice
 from Microsoft.

 However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your
 computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have
 received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk
 and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes.*

 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
 ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

 ---
 To manage subscriptions click here:
 http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
 or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
 with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

  Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including attachments, is
 for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
 and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or
 distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
 contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all 

Re: Licensing question

2011-03-15 Thread Tom Miller
Talk to Microsoft.  At least you'll get an MS answer.  

 James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com 3/15/2011 9:04 AM 
Hmmm. I don't know whether AppSense are trying to pull the wool over my eyes 
then. They sent me this document

http://www.appsense.com/Files/Documents/Microsoft%20Application%20License%20Control%20%28US%29.pdf

which seems to indicate that how the network is set up and how access is 
provided to Microsoft application software has no impact on the licensing of 
the application itself.

Maybe they are just trying to get me to buy into their suitewhich is not 
really necessary, seeing as though we already have 2000 licenses for it.

Might be time to get onto MS directly.

On 15 March 2011 13:00, Tom Miller tmil...@hnncsb.org wrote:


We purchase enough licenses so that each person who will potentially access the 
MS application has a license. So we purchase fewer licenses of MS 
Visio/Project/Access than the general MS Office Standard Suite. Access to those 
applications is limited to a number of staff in a special group, which we have 
configured for Citrix XenApp access. So users who don't have a license don't 
even see the app.
I think this is correct; I called MS licensing about it. You can inquire at 
microsoft.com/licensing. Who knows, MS licensing seems to change every day. And 
if you are using virtual desktops, each Win 7 license comes with a virtual 
license too. But I don't know if that applies to MS applications.
Microsoft Licensing = Obfuscation.
Tom


 James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com 3/15/2011 8:51 AM 

Am I right in assuming that MS desktop applications are all licensed on a 
per-device basis? We have 70 licenses for Project which are available to users 
coming through a Citrix infrastructure, with 1900 endpoints. Now, given that 
each endpoint logs on to a Citrix server where Project is available as a 
streamed app, is it correct that I would need 1900 licenses for Project, even 
though the application is restricted on a per-group basis to 70 users only?

A document I received from AppSense seems to confirm these suspicions. I could 
use Appsense's Application Manager suite to restrict the execution of Project 
to 70 named devices, which apparently would conform with Microsoft's per-device 
licensing rules, but this would also create a big issue with my current 
client's push towards hot-desking as a solution for its mobile employees. Is 
there any way of complying with MS's per-device licensing rules in a Terminal 
Services environment where mobile users are required to log on at any machine, 
or will I have to a) bite the bullet and shell out for 1900 licenses, or b) 
restrict my endpoints to 70 Project-enabled workstations?

I also have my suspicion that users' home machines with access to the Project 
application via VPN may also be classed as endpoints by MS for licensing 
purposes. Is this also correct?


TIA,



JRR

-- 
On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the 
machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly 
to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) 
named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or 
unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of 
humour or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, 
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorised 
(either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas.

Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere 
other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or no grammatical use 
and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, 
although the kelpie next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. 
Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to 
learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning 
backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft.

However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer 
you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received 
this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk and place in 
a warm oven for 40 minutes.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including attachments, is for the 
sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or 
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the 

RE: Licensing question

2011-03-15 Thread Guyer, Don
Could you restrict access to the app using %username% instead of
%device%?

Don Guyer

Windows Systems Engineer

Datasafe Platform

Enterprise Technology Group

Fiserv

don.gu...@fiserv.com

Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673

Fax: 610-293-4499

www.fiserv.com http://www.fiserv.com/ 

 

From: Tom Miller [mailto:tmil...@hnncsb.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:37 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Licensing question

 

Talk to Microsoft.  At least you'll get an MS answer.  

 James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com 3/15/2011 9:04 AM 
Hmmm. I don't know whether AppSense are trying to pull the wool over my
eyes then. They sent me this document

http://www.appsense.com/Files/Documents/Microsoft%20Application%20Licens
e%20Control%20%28US%29.pdf

which seems to indicate that how the network is set up and how access
is provided to Microsoft application software has no impact on the
licensing of the application itself.

Maybe they are just trying to get me to buy into their suitewhich is
not really necessary, seeing as though we already have 2000 licenses for
it.

Might be time to get onto MS directly.

On 15 March 2011 13:00, Tom Miller tmil...@hnncsb.org wrote:

We purchase enough licenses so that each person who will potentially
access the MS application has a license. So we purchase fewer licenses
of MS Visio/Project/Access than the general MS Office Standard Suite.
Access to those applications is limited to a number of staff in a
special group, which we have configured for Citrix XenApp access. So
users who don't have a license don't even see the app.

I think this is correct; I called MS licensing about it. You can inquire
at microsoft.com/licensing. Who knows, MS licensing seems to change
every day. And if you are using virtual desktops, each Win 7 license
comes with a virtual license too. But I don't know if that applies to MS
applications.

Microsoft Licensing = Obfuscation.

Tom



 James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com 3/15/2011 8:51 AM 

Am I right in assuming that MS desktop applications are all licensed on
a per-device basis? We have 70 licenses for Project which are available
to users coming through a Citrix infrastructure, with 1900 endpoints.
Now, given that each endpoint logs on to a Citrix server where Project
is available as a streamed app, is it correct that I would need 1900
licenses for Project, even though the application is restricted on a
per-group basis to 70 users only?

A document I received from AppSense seems to confirm these suspicions. I
could use Appsense's Application Manager suite to restrict the execution
of Project to 70 named devices, which apparently would conform with
Microsoft's per-device licensing rules, but this would also create a big
issue with my current client's push towards hot-desking as a solution
for its mobile employees. Is there any way of complying with MS's
per-device licensing rules in a Terminal Services environment where
mobile users are required to log on at any machine, or will I have to a)
bite the bullet and shell out for 1900 licenses, or b) restrict my
endpoints to 70 Project-enabled workstations?

I also have my suspicion that users' home machines with access to the
Project application via VPN may also be classed as endpoints by MS for
licensing purposes. Is this also correct?


TIA,



JRR


-- 
On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put
into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am
not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could
provoke such a question.

IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is
confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with
low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational religious beliefs. If
you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this email is not authorised (either explicitly or
implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas.

Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context
somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or no
grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the
transmission of this email, although the kelpie next door is living on
borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear
of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden
message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that
Alert Notice from Microsoft.

However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your
computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you
have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg
whites, whisk and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt

Re: Licensing question

2011-03-15 Thread Kramer, Jack
As far as I know applications are licensed on a per-seat and not a per-device 
basis when they're used in a Citrix or Terminal Server environment (since 
otherwise you could theoretically buy only one license for your Citrix/Termserv 
and share it out to everyone). The per-device licensing is when you have the 
application installed on end-user machines.


Jack Kramer
Computer Systems Specialist
University Relations, Michigan State University
w: 517-884-1231 / c: 248-635-4955

From: James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.commailto:kz2...@googlemail.com
Reply-To: NT System Admin Issues 
ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.commailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:04:29 -0400
To: NT System Admin Issues 
ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.commailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Subject: Re: Licensing question

Hmmm. I don't know whether AppSense are trying to pull the wool over my eyes 
then. They sent me this document

http://www.appsense.com/Files/Documents/Microsoft%20Application%20License%20Control%20%28US%29.pdf

which seems to indicate that how the network is set up and how access is 
provided to Microsoft application software has no impact on the licensing of 
the application itself.

Maybe they are just trying to get me to buy into their suitewhich is not 
really necessary, seeing as though we already have 2000 licenses for it.

Might be time to get onto MS directly.

On 15 March 2011 13:00, Tom Miller 
tmil...@hnncsb.orgmailto:tmil...@hnncsb.org wrote:
We purchase enough licenses so that each person who will potentially access the 
MS application has a license.  So we purchase fewer licenses of MS 
Visio/Project/Access than the general MS Office Standard Suite.  Access to 
those applications is limited to a number of staff in a special group, which we 
have configured for Citrix XenApp access.  So users who don't have a license 
don't even see the app.

I think this is correct; I called MS licensing about it.  You can inquire at 
microsoft.com/licensinghttp://microsoft.com/licensing.  Who knows, MS 
licensing seems to change every day.  And if you are using virtual desktops, 
each Win 7 license comes with a virtual license too.  But I don't know if that 
applies to MS applications.

Microsoft Licensing = Obfuscation.

Tom


 James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.commailto:kz2...@googlemail.com 
 3/15/2011 8:51 AM 

Am I right in assuming that MS desktop applications are all licensed on a 
per-device basis? We have 70 licenses for Project which are available to users 
coming through a Citrix infrastructure, with 1900 endpoints. Now, given that 
each endpoint logs on to a Citrix server where Project is available as a 
streamed app, is it correct that I would need 1900 licenses for Project, even 
though the application is restricted on a per-group basis to 70 users only?

A document I received from AppSense seems to confirm these suspicions. I could 
use Appsense's Application Manager suite to restrict the execution of Project 
to 70 named devices, which apparently would conform with Microsoft's per-device 
licensing rules, but this would also create a big issue with my current 
client's push towards hot-desking as a solution for its mobile employees. Is 
there any way of complying with MS's per-device licensing rules in a Terminal 
Services environment where mobile users are required to log on at any machine, 
or will I have to a) bite the bullet and shell out for 1900 licenses, or b) 
restrict my endpoints to 70 Project-enabled workstations?

I also have my suspicion that users' home machines with access to the Project 
application via VPN may also be classed as endpoints by MS for licensing 
purposes. Is this also correct?


TIA,



JRR

--
On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the 
machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly 
to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) 
named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or 
unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of 
humour or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, 
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorised 
(either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas.

Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere 
other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or no grammatical use 
and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, 
although the kelpie next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. 
Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to 
learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning 
backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft.

However, by pouring

Re: Licensing question

2011-03-15 Thread James Rankin
Can restrict on anything - user, group, OU, IP address, client name, time of
day, environment variable, processor type, WMI query, you name it. The
question is whether this would conform with the licensing model. I was
wondering if anyone had come across the same issues and gotten a definitive
answer, but it looks like I'll have to get onto MS. As mentioned previously,
licensing is some very muddy waters.

On 15 March 2011 13:43, Guyer, Don don.gu...@fiserv.com wrote:

 Could you restrict access to the app using %username% instead of %device%?

 *Don Guyer*

 Windows Systems Engineer

 Datasafe Platform

 Enterprise Technology Group

 *Fiserv*

 don.gu...@fiserv.com

 Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673

 Fax: 610-293-4499

 www.fiserv.com



 *From:* Tom Miller [mailto:tmil...@hnncsb.org]
 *Sent:* Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:37 AM
 *To:* NT System Admin Issues
 *Subject:* Re: Licensing question



 Talk to Microsoft.  At least you'll get an MS answer.

  James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com 3/15/2011 9:04 AM 
 Hmmm. I don't know whether AppSense are trying to pull the wool over my
 eyes then. They sent me this document


 http://www.appsense.com/Files/Documents/Microsoft%20Application%20License%20Control%20%28US%29.pdf

 which seems to indicate that *how the network is set up and how access is
 provided to Microsoft application software has no impact on the licensing of
 the application itself*.

 Maybe they are just trying to get me to buy into their suitewhich is
 not really necessary, seeing as though we already have 2000 licenses for it.

 Might be time to get onto MS directly.

 On 15 March 2011 13:00, Tom Miller tmil...@hnncsb.org wrote:

 We purchase enough licenses so that each person who will potentially access
 the MS application has a license. So we purchase fewer licenses of MS
 Visio/Project/Access than the general MS Office Standard Suite. Access to
 those applications is limited to a number of staff in a special group, which
 we have configured for Citrix XenApp access. So users who don't have a
 license don't even see the app.

 I think this is correct; I called MS licensing about it. You can inquire at
 microsoft.com/licensing. Who knows, MS licensing seems to change every
 day. And if you are using virtual desktops, each Win 7 license comes with a
 virtual license too. But I don't know if that applies to MS applications.

 Microsoft Licensing = Obfuscation.

 Tom



  James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com 3/15/2011 8:51 AM 

 Am I right in assuming that MS desktop applications are all licensed on a
 per-device basis? We have 70 licenses for Project which are available to
 users coming through a Citrix infrastructure, with 1900 endpoints. Now,
 given that each endpoint logs on to a Citrix server where Project is
 available as a streamed app, is it correct that I would need 1900 licenses
 for Project, even though the application is restricted on a per-group basis
 to 70 users only?

 A document I received from AppSense seems to confirm these suspicions. I
 could use Appsense's Application Manager suite to restrict the execution of
 Project to 70 named devices, which apparently would conform with Microsoft's
 per-device licensing rules, but this would also create a big issue with my
 current client's push towards hot-desking as a solution for its mobile
 employees. Is there any way of complying with MS's per-device licensing
 rules in a Terminal Services environment where mobile users are required to
 log on at any machine, or will I have to a) bite the bullet and shell out
 for 1900 licenses, or b) restrict my endpoints to 70 Project-enabled
 workstations?

 I also have my suspicion that users' home machines with access to the
 Project application via VPN may also be classed as endpoints by MS for
 licensing purposes. Is this also correct?


 TIA,



 JRR

 --
 On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
 the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
 rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
 a question.

 *IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
 addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential,
 privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem,
 no sense of humour or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the
 intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email
 is not authorised (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an
 irritating social faux pas.

 Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context
 somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or no
 grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the
 transmission of this email, although the kelpie next door is living on
 borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of
 the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message
 revealed by reading

Re: Licensing question

2011-03-15 Thread Ben Scott
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:46 AM, James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com wrote:
 I was
 wondering if anyone had come across the same issues and gotten a definitive
 answer, but it looks like I'll have to get onto MS.

  In my experience, if you keep asking MS licensing the same question,
eventually you'll get an answer you like (and several you don't).

  Take that FWIW.  ~shrug~

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


RE: Licensing question

2011-03-15 Thread Guyer, Don
The way I understand it is, in a fat-client model, once you installed it
on the 71st computer, you'd be violating your licensing agreement.

 

In a Citrix environment, it would be available only to the users
restricted, so you should never go beyond that number. In that case, I
think it moves to a simultaneous user count, since it's only installed
on the Citrix server(s).

 

I could be totally wrong, also...

 

J

 

Don Guyer

Windows Systems Engineer

Datasafe Platform

Enterprise Technology Group

Fiserv

don.gu...@fiserv.com

Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673

Fax: 610-293-4499

www.fiserv.com http://www.fiserv.com/ 

 

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:46 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Licensing question

 

Can restrict on anything - user, group, OU, IP address, client name,
time of day, environment variable, processor type, WMI query, you name
it. The question is whether this would conform with the licensing model.
I was wondering if anyone had come across the same issues and gotten a
definitive answer, but it looks like I'll have to get onto MS. As
mentioned previously, licensing is some very muddy waters.

On 15 March 2011 13:43, Guyer, Don don.gu...@fiserv.com wrote:

Could you restrict access to the app using %username% instead of
%device%?

Don Guyer

Windows Systems Engineer

Datasafe Platform

Enterprise Technology Group

Fiserv

don.gu...@fiserv.com

Office: 1-800-523-7282 x 1673

Fax: 610-293-4499

www.fiserv.com http://www.fiserv.com/ 

 

From: Tom Miller [mailto:tmil...@hnncsb.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:37 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Licensing question

 

Talk to Microsoft.  At least you'll get an MS answer.  

 James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com 3/15/2011 9:04 AM 
Hmmm. I don't know whether AppSense are trying to pull the wool over my
eyes then. They sent me this document

http://www.appsense.com/Files/Documents/Microsoft%20Application%20Licens
e%20Control%20%28US%29.pdf

which seems to indicate that how the network is set up and how access
is provided to Microsoft application software has no impact on the
licensing of the application itself.

Maybe they are just trying to get me to buy into their suitewhich is
not really necessary, seeing as though we already have 2000 licenses for
it.

Might be time to get onto MS directly.

On 15 March 2011 13:00, Tom Miller tmil...@hnncsb.org wrote:

We purchase enough licenses so that each person who will potentially
access the MS application has a license. So we purchase fewer licenses
of MS Visio/Project/Access than the general MS Office Standard Suite.
Access to those applications is limited to a number of staff in a
special group, which we have configured for Citrix XenApp access. So
users who don't have a license don't even see the app.

I think this is correct; I called MS licensing about it. You can inquire
at microsoft.com/licensing. Who knows, MS licensing seems to change
every day. And if you are using virtual desktops, each Win 7 license
comes with a virtual license too. But I don't know if that applies to MS
applications.

Microsoft Licensing = Obfuscation.

Tom



 James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com 3/15/2011 8:51 AM 

Am I right in assuming that MS desktop applications are all licensed on
a per-device basis? We have 70 licenses for Project which are available
to users coming through a Citrix infrastructure, with 1900 endpoints.
Now, given that each endpoint logs on to a Citrix server where Project
is available as a streamed app, is it correct that I would need 1900
licenses for Project, even though the application is restricted on a
per-group basis to 70 users only?

A document I received from AppSense seems to confirm these suspicions. I
could use Appsense's Application Manager suite to restrict the execution
of Project to 70 named devices, which apparently would conform with
Microsoft's per-device licensing rules, but this would also create a big
issue with my current client's push towards hot-desking as a solution
for its mobile employees. Is there any way of complying with MS's
per-device licensing rules in a Terminal Services environment where
mobile users are required to log on at any machine, or will I have to a)
bite the bullet and shell out for 1900 licenses, or b) restrict my
endpoints to 70 Project-enabled workstations?

I also have my suspicion that users' home machines with access to the
Project application via VPN may also be classed as endpoints by MS for
licensing purposes. Is this also correct?


TIA,



JRR


-- 
On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put
into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am
not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could
provoke such a question.

IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is
confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly

Re: Licensing question

2011-03-15 Thread Andrew S. Baker
   - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/licensing-rds.aspx
   -
   
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/product-licensing-overview.aspx
   -
   
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/volume-licensing-briefs.aspx#tab=2

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/licensing-rds.aspx

At the end of the day, the licensing is based on the number of users/devices
that are able to run the software at the end-point.

Speak to a licensing rep either from Microsoft, or who is a Microsoft
partner.   This will help you determine whether to license by DEVICE or by
USER, which is the biggest issue.


*ASB *(Find me online via About.Me http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker/bio)
 *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...

 *



On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:51 AM, James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com wrote:


 Am I right in assuming that MS desktop applications are all licensed on a
 per-device basis? We have 70 licenses for Project which are available to
 users coming through a Citrix infrastructure, with 1900 endpoints. Now,
 given that each endpoint logs on to a Citrix server where Project is
 available as a streamed app, is it correct that I would need 1900 licenses
 for Project, even though the application is restricted on a per-group basis
 to 70 users only?

 A document I received from AppSense seems to confirm these suspicions. I
 could use Appsense's Application Manager suite to restrict the execution of
 Project to 70 named devices, which apparently would conform with Microsoft's
 per-device licensing rules, but this would also create a big issue with my
 current client's push towards hot-desking as a solution for its mobile
 employees. Is there any way of complying with MS's per-device licensing
 rules in a Terminal Services environment where mobile users are required to
 log on at any machine, or will I have to a) bite the bullet and shell out
 for 1900 licenses, or b) restrict my endpoints to 70 Project-enabled
 workstations?

 I also have my suspicion that users' home machines with access to the
 Project application via VPN may also be classed as endpoints by MS for
 licensing purposes. Is this also correct?


 TIA,



 JRR

 --
 On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
 the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
 rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
 a question.
 *
 *

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Licensing question on educational discounts

2010-10-20 Thread Eric Wittersheim
Are you accredited by the ACGME yet?

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Eldridge, Dave d...@parkviewmc.com wrote:

  Just testing the list for opinions.

 We currently are a non-profit hospital. We are starting a teaching
 residency program for internal medicine Doctors and hope to have our first
 students here in little over a year. We have already requested and gotten
 our licenses from the Feds/State. My question is does this change our
 licensing with Microsoft? In their eyes are we now a teaching/educational
 facility and are we entitled to those types of  discounts. Yes/No?



 Thanks for any opinions.

 dave

 This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does not
 represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.

 This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above, may
 be confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as such in
 accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the intended
 recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this communication, or
 any of its contents, is prohibited. If you have received this communication
 in error, please return to sender and delete the message from your computer
 system.{token}

 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
 ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

 ---
 To manage subscriptions click here:
 http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
 or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
 with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Licensing question on educational discounts

2010-10-20 Thread Eldridge, Dave
Good question I will find out.

 

From: Eric Wittersheim [mailto:eric.wittersh...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:29 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Licensing question on educational discounts

 

Are you accredited by the ACGME yet?

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Eldridge, Dave d...@parkviewmc.com
wrote:

Just testing the list for opinions.

We currently are a non-profit hospital. We are starting a teaching
residency program for internal medicine Doctors and hope to have our
first students here in little over a year. We have already requested and
gotten our licenses from the Feds/State. My question is does this change
our licensing with Microsoft? In their eyes are we now a
teaching/educational facility and are we entitled to those types of
discounts. Yes/No?

 

Thanks for any opinions.

dave

This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does
not represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.

This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above,
may be confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as
such in accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
communication, or any of its contents, is prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please return to sender and delete
the message from your computer system.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

Re: Licensing question on educational discounts

2010-10-20 Thread James Kerr
No, you have medics on staff so you will be denied unless you are an FQHC and 
operating as an FQHC exclusively which you are not because you are teaching 
also. Our clinics are FQHCs but we are denied because we provide other services 
which makes us not operating exclusively as an FQHC. It sucks.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eldridge, Dave 
  To: NT System Admin Issues 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:24 PM
  Subject: Licensing question on educational discounts


  Just testing the list for opinions.

  We currently are a non-profit hospital. We are starting a teaching residency 
program for internal medicine Doctors and hope to have our first students here 
in little over a year. We have already requested and gotten our licenses from 
the Feds/State. My question is does this change our licensing with Microsoft? 
In their eyes are we now a teaching/educational facility and are we entitled to 
those types of  discounts. Yes/No?

   

  Thanks for any opinions.

  dave

  This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does not 
represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.

  This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above, may be 
confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as such in 
accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the intended recipient, 
you are hereby notified that any use of this communication, or any of its 
contents, is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, 
please return to sender and delete the message from your computer system.{token}

  ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
  ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

  ---
  To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
  or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
  with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here: 
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

RE: Licensing question

2009-06-25 Thread Ziots, Edward
When I read SQL licensing, the web-server is the multi-plexing device,
so even-though you have 1 SQL account or connection into the DB backend
whether it sits on the main webserver or a separate machine,  it still
needs to be licensed for the number of possible users of the webserver
if this is public facing you might as well license per-processor, forget
the CALS and be done with it. This allows you to scale accordingly,
without incurring anymore cost beyond the additional licensing. 

 

Z

 

Edward Ziots

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

MCSE,MCSA,MCP+I, ME, CCA, Security +, Network +

ezi...@lifespan.org

Phone:401-639-3505



From: Joe Heaton [mailto:jhea...@etp.ca.gov] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:39 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Licensing question

 

I saw this statement when looking through the licensing page for Web
Server 2008:

 

Windows Web Server 2008 licensing is enhanced to allow any type of
database software on the server software with no limit on the number of
users.

 

Does anyone out there have any clarification on this?  Does this mean I
can install SQL on the same box without needing a license?  Or is it
just for CALs for that box?

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

jhea...@etp.ca.gov

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

RE: Licensing question

2009-06-24 Thread Andy Ognenoff
I believe that is in reference to previous versions of Web Edition only
allowing you to install 3rd party apps that did the same function as MS
supplied apps (IE, you could run a different FTP server on Web Edition since
IIS had an FTP server built in.) Previously, I don’t think you could install
database software on Web Edition at all and be compliant with the license.

 - Andy O. 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:jhea...@etp.ca.gov] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:39 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Licensing question

I saw this statement when looking through the licensing page for Web Server
2008:

“Windows Web Server 2008 licensing is enhanced to allow any type of database
software on the server software with no limit on the number of users.”

Does anyone out there have any clarification on this?  Does this mean I can
install SQL on the same box without needing a license?  Or is it just for
CALs for that box?

Joe Heaton
AISA
Employment Training Panel
1100 J Street, 4th Floor
Sacramento, CA  95814
(916) 327-5276
jhea...@etp.ca.gov

 
 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~



RE: Licensing question

2009-06-24 Thread Joe Heaton
Ok, so I still need to have a SQL server license if we're going to install SQL 
on that box.  That's what I thought, but thanks for the info.

Joe Heaton
Employment Training Panel


-Original Message-
From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:andyognen...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Licensing question

I believe that is in reference to previous versions of Web Edition only
allowing you to install 3rd party apps that did the same function as MS
supplied apps (IE, you could run a different FTP server on Web Edition since
IIS had an FTP server built in.) Previously, I don't think you could install
database software on Web Edition at all and be compliant with the license.

 - Andy O. 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:jhea...@etp.ca.gov] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:39 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Licensing question

I saw this statement when looking through the licensing page for Web Server
2008:

Windows Web Server 2008 licensing is enhanced to allow any type of database
software on the server software with no limit on the number of users.

Does anyone out there have any clarification on this?  Does this mean I can
install SQL on the same box without needing a license?  Or is it just for
CALs for that box?

Joe Heaton
AISA
Employment Training Panel
1100 J Street, 4th Floor
Sacramento, CA  95814
(916) 327-5276
jhea...@etp.ca.gov

 
 


~ 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/  ~



RE: Licensing question

2009-06-24 Thread Michael B. Smith
Unless it's SQL Express.

But there is now a SQL Server Web Edition that is approximately equivalent to 
SQL Server Workgroup.


From: Joe Heaton [jhea...@etp.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:45 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Licensing question

Ok, so I still need to have a SQL server license if we're going to install SQL 
on that box.  That's what I thought, but thanks for the info.

Joe Heaton
Employment Training Panel


-Original Message-
From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:andyognen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Licensing question

I believe that is in reference to previous versions of Web Edition only
allowing you to install 3rd party apps that did the same function as MS
supplied apps (IE, you could run a different FTP server on Web Edition since
IIS had an FTP server built in.) Previously, I don't think you could install
database software on Web Edition at all and be compliant with the license.

 - Andy O.

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:jhea...@etp.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:39 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Licensing question

I saw this statement when looking through the licensing page for Web Server
2008:

Windows Web Server 2008 licensing is enhanced to allow any type of database
software on the server software with no limit on the number of users.

Does anyone out there have any clarification on this?  Does this mean I can
install SQL on the same box without needing a license?  Or is it just for
CALs for that box?

Joe Heaton
AISA
Employment Training Panel
1100 J Street, 4th Floor
Sacramento, CA  95814
(916) 327-5276
jhea...@etp.ca.gov





~ 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/  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~



RE: Licensing question

2009-06-10 Thread John Aldrich
My understanding is that you have to have enough Windows Server CALs for
everyone on your network, and that CALs float between servers. At least
that's what our vendor told us when we went to Active Directory last year.

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:jhea...@etp.ca.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 5:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Licensing question

 

Does every server have to have CALs for everyone in your organization?  For
instance, if I have a server that I use for network tools, for the most
part, do I have to have CALS for everyone, or just the people that would be
accessing it?  I can see the file server having the most CALs, as everyone
touches it for their files, but what about my AV server?  Only a handful of
people directly access it.  Or my webfilter server, only a handful of people
access it.

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

jhea...@etp.ca.gov

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.61/2167 - Release Date: 06/10/09
05:52:00


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~image001.jpgimage002.jpg

RE: Licensing question

2009-06-10 Thread Cameron Cooper
From what I understand you need enough CAL's for every user and device
that resides on your network.  Also believe that you can either set them
up per user or per seat, but not both.  Here's Microsoft's
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sam/lic_cal.mspx  info on CALs and
what is needed per server (ie exchange, terminal server, etc)  

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com mailto:ccoo...@aurico.com 

 

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 7:52 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Licensing question

 

My understanding is that you have to have enough Windows Server CALs for
everyone on your network, and that CALs float between servers. At
least that's what our vendor told us when we went to Active Directory
last year.

 

  

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:jhea...@etp.ca.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 5:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Licensing question

 

Does every server have to have CALs for everyone in your organization?
For instance, if I have a server that I use for network tools, for the
most part, do I have to have CALS for everyone, or just the people that
would be accessing it?  I can see the file server having the most CALs,
as everyone touches it for their files, but what about my AV server?
Only a handful of people directly access it.  Or my webfilter server,
only a handful of people access it.

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

jhea...@etp.ca.gov

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.61/2167 - Release Date:
06/10/09 05:52:00

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~image001.jpgimage002.jpg

RE: Licensing question

2009-06-10 Thread John Aldrich
I believe you're correct. However, since we don't have Exchange or TS, we're
good. J

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

From: Cameron Cooper [mailto:ccoo...@aurico.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:57 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Licensing question

 

From what I understand you need enough CAL's for every user and device that
resides on your network.  Also believe that you can either set them up per
user or per seat, but not both.  Here's Microsoft's
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sam/lic_cal.mspx  info on CALs and what
is needed per server (ie exchange, terminal server, etc)  

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 7:52 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Licensing question

 

My understanding is that you have to have enough Windows Server CALs for
everyone on your network, and that CALs float between servers. At least
that's what our vendor told us when we went to Active Directory last year.

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:jhea...@etp.ca.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 5:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Licensing question

 

Does every server have to have CALs for everyone in your organization?  For
instance, if I have a server that I use for network tools, for the most
part, do I have to have CALS for everyone, or just the people that would be
accessing it?  I can see the file server having the most CALs, as everyone
touches it for their files, but what about my AV server?  Only a handful of
people directly access it.  Or my webfilter server, only a handful of people
access it.

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

jhea...@etp.ca.gov

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.61/2167 - Release Date: 06/10/09
05:52:00

 

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.61/2167 - Release Date: 06/10/09
05:52:00


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~image001.jpgimage002.jpg

RE: Licensing question

2009-06-10 Thread Joe Heaton
Ok, that makes sense.  Thanks guys for the help.

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.house...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:24 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Licensing question

 

Generally people buy Windows CALs for workstations, not servers.  A W2K3
CAL assigned to a workstation allows access to all W2K3 servers owned by
the company that bought the CAL.

 

Carl

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:jhea...@etp.ca.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 5:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Licensing question

 

Does every server have to have CALs for everyone in your organization?
For instance, if I have a server that I use for network tools, for the
most part, do I have to have CALS for everyone, or just the people that
would be accessing it?  I can see the file server having the most CALs,
as everyone touches it for their files, but what about my AV server?
Only a handful of people directly access it.  Or my webfilter server,
only a handful of people access it.

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

jhea...@etp.ca.gov

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

Re: Licensing question

2009-06-10 Thread Ben Scott
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Cameron Cooperccoo...@aurico.com wrote:
 Also believe that you can either set them up per user or per seat ...

  As I understand it:

  Each given CAL can be assigned to a user or a device.  You can mix
types within an organization.  For example, here, we assign CALs to
people with named accounts, but shared computers (factory floor
terminals, etc.) we assign CALs to the device.

  Once you've designated a CAL as user or device, you're not
supposed to change that.  There's a provision for one-time or
permanent reassignment, but exactly what that means in practice
seems to vary depending on what document you're reading.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~


RE: Licensing question

2009-06-10 Thread Cameron Cooper
Good to know... wasn't too sure on whether that was possible or not as I
haven't played around too much with CALs.

_
Cameron Cooper
IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified
Aurico Reports, Inc
Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896
ccoo...@aurico.com


-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Licensing question

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Cameron Cooperccoo...@aurico.com
wrote:
 Also believe that you can either set them up per user or per seat ...

  As I understand it:

  Each given CAL can be assigned to a user or a device.  You can mix
types within an organization.  For example, here, we assign CALs to
people with named accounts, but shared computers (factory floor
terminals, etc.) we assign CALs to the device.

  Once you've designated a CAL as user or device, you're not
supposed to change that.  There's a provision for one-time or
permanent reassignment, but exactly what that means in practice
seems to vary depending on what document you're reading.

-- 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/  ~



RE: Licensing question

2009-06-10 Thread Mike Gill
You vendor would be wrong per the link Cameron sent. On the page for Windows
Server:

 

Ø  The Windows CALs you acquire are designated for use exclusively with a
particular server.

 

What would be good is applications such as AV to internally schedule groups
of clients for updates. That way if you had 1000 seats needing AV updates,
the server would allow 50 or 100 at a time, whatever number makes sense for
you. Then your CAL requirement could be lessened and it would be a
marketable feature for the AV product.

 

-- 
Mike Gill

 

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 5:52 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Licensing question

 

My understanding is that you have to have enough Windows Server CALs for
everyone on your network, and that CALs “float” between servers. At least
that’s what our vendor told us when we went to Active Directory last year.

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:jhea...@etp.ca.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 5:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Licensing question

 

Does every server have to have CALs for everyone in your organization?  For
instance, if I have a server that I use for network tools, for the most
part, do I have to have CALS for everyone, or just the people that would be
accessing it?  I can see the file server having the most CALs, as everyone
touches it for their files, but what about my AV server?  Only a handful of
people directly access it.  Or my webfilter server, only a handful of people
access it.

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

jhea...@etp.ca.gov

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.61/2167 - Release Date: 06/10/09
05:52:00

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~image001.jpgimage002.jpg

RE: Licensing question

2009-06-10 Thread Andy Ognenoff
Note that the text you included from the page was listed under the “Per Server” 
mode for CAL assignment.  The “floating” comment was probably referring to “Per 
User or Device” mode.

 - Andy O. 

From: Mike Gill [mailto:lis...@canbyfoursquare.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Licensing question

You vendor would be wrong per the link Cameron sent. On the page for Windows 
Server:

➢ The Windows CALs you acquire are designated for use exclusively with a 
particular server.

What would be good is applications such as AV to internally schedule groups of 
clients for updates. That way if you had 1000 seats needing AV updates, the 
server would allow 50 or 100 at a time, whatever number makes sense for you. 
Then your CAL requirement could be lessened and it would be a marketable 
feature for the AV product.

-- 
Mike Gill



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~



RE: Licensing question

2009-06-10 Thread John Aldrich
Yes, I believe we have *user* CALs, not per server CALs.



-Original Message-
From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:andyognen...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 12:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Licensing question

Note that the text you included from the page was listed under the Per Server 
mode for CAL assignment.  The floating comment was probably referring to Per 
User or Device mode.

 - Andy O. 

From: Mike Gill [mailto:lis...@canbyfoursquare.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Licensing question

You vendor would be wrong per the link Cameron sent. On the page for Windows 
Server:

? The Windows CALs you acquire are designated for use exclusively with a 
particular server.

What would be good is applications such as AV to internally schedule groups of 
clients for updates. That way if you had 1000 seats needing AV updates, the 
server would allow 50 or 100 at a time, whatever number makes sense for you. 
Then your CAL requirement could be lessened and it would be a marketable 
feature for the AV product.

-- 
Mike Gill



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.364 / Virus Database: 270.12.61/2167 - Release Date: 06/10/09 
05:52:00

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~



Re: Licensing question

2009-06-09 Thread Ben Scott
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Joe Heatonjhea...@etp.ca.gov wrote:
 Does every server have to have CALs for everyone in your organization?

  Well, technically speaking, servers don't need CALs at all, clients do.  :)

  Every client that is accessing a server needs a CAL.

  In this context, client can be defined as a user (a particular,
individual person) or a device (a particular computer, thin client,
PDA, mobile phone, or whatever).

  For Windows Server itself, CALs can be assigned to the server or to
clients.  If assigned to the server, they are used per concurrent
connection.  If assigned to a client, they are good for any servers
the client connects to.

 For instance, if I have a server that I use for network tools, for the most
 part, do I have to have CALS for everyone, or just the people that would be
 accessing it?

  Technically, just the people that would be accessing that server.
Be careful, though; that means you can't use that server for anything
else that anyone without a CAL might need.

  But if you've got more than one server, you're almost certainly
better off assigning CALs per client.  A CAL assigned to a given
client is good for any number of servers.

  Or are you faced with having %LARGE_NUMBER% of CALs for an older
server release, but some new software product needs a newer server
release, and you don't want to buy new CALs for *everyone*.

 ... what about my AV server?

  Clients almost certainly make authenticated connections to the AV
server, so they all need CALs.

 Only a handful of people directly access it.

  Microsoft's licenses go to lengths to make it clear that direct or
indirect, multiplexed, etc., doesn't matter.  It's authenticated use
that's the determining factor.

 Or my webfilter server, only a handful of people access it.

  I would assume everyone uses the webfilter server to get to the web?  :)

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~


RE: Licensing question

2009-06-09 Thread Carl Houseman
Generally people buy Windows CALs for workstations, not servers.  A W2K3 CAL
assigned to a workstation allows access to all W2K3 servers owned by the
company that bought the CAL.

 

Carl

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:jhea...@etp.ca.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 5:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Licensing question

 

Does every server have to have CALs for everyone in your organization?  For
instance, if I have a server that I use for network tools, for the most
part, do I have to have CALS for everyone, or just the people that would be
accessing it?  I can see the file server having the most CALs, as everyone
touches it for their files, but what about my AV server?  Only a handful of
people directly access it.  Or my webfilter server, only a handful of people
access it.

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

jhea...@etp.ca.gov

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

RE: Licensing question

2009-06-09 Thread Ken Schaefer
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/client-licensing.aspx

You can license:
per server: each server needs 1 CAL for each concurrent connection.
or
per user: each user needs a CAL. Allows access to as many Windows servers as 
you have
or
per device: each device needs a CAL. Allows access to as many Windows server as 
you have




From: Joe Heaton [jhea...@etp.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 June 2009 7:50 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Licensing question

Does every server have to have CALs for everyone in your organization?  For 
instance, if I have a server that I use for network tools, for the most part, 
do I have to have CALS for everyone, or just the people that would be accessing 
it?  I can see the file server having the most CALs, as everyone touches it for 
their files, but what about my AV server?  Only a handful of people directly 
access it.  Or my webfilter server, only a handful of people access it.

Joe Heaton
AISA
Employment Training Panel
1100 J Street, 4th Floor
Sacramento, CA  95814
(916) 327-5276
jhea...@etp.ca.gov






~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~

Re: Licensing question

2008-09-11 Thread Phil Brutsche
IME yes.

Keep in mind that Win2k only supports *devices* licenses. That bit me in
the arse when we eventually decided to upgrade to a 2003 TS.

Also keep in mind that:

a) TS CALs are only available through volume licensing
b) You may not be able to get 2003 CALs, thus you may need to get 2008 CALs
c) You definitely CANNOT get 2000 CALs
d) you may need to get SA for the 2008/2003 CALs to cover 2000.
e) Ask the sales dude and/or MS' licensing specialists for confirmation

I know for a fact that if you buy the TS VL CALs for 2008 with SA, your
CALs will also cover 2003 and very likely 2000.

Kurt Buff wrote:
 If we were to purchase TS licenses for Win2k3 TS clients, would this
 cover our requirements for Win2k TS?

-- 

Phil Brutsche
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/  ~


RE: Licensing question

2008-09-11 Thread David Mazzaccaro
Actually, you can get TS CALs in retail format...
TJA-00124  (5 user retail box TS User CALS)


-Original Message-
From: Phil Brutsche [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 9:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Licensing question

IME yes.

Keep in mind that Win2k only supports *devices* licenses. That bit me in
the arse when we eventually decided to upgrade to a 2003 TS.

Also keep in mind that:

a) TS CALs are only available through volume licensing
b) You may not be able to get 2003 CALs, thus you may need to get 2008
CALs
c) You definitely CANNOT get 2000 CALs
d) you may need to get SA for the 2008/2003 CALs to cover 2000.
e) Ask the sales dude and/or MS' licensing specialists for confirmation

I know for a fact that if you buy the TS VL CALs for 2008 with SA, your
CALs will also cover 2003 and very likely 2000.

Kurt Buff wrote:
 If we were to purchase TS licenses for Win2k3 TS clients, would this 
 cover our requirements for Win2k TS?

-- 

Phil Brutsche
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

~ 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/  ~


RE: Licensing question for a SBS box transitioned to win2k3

2008-04-28 Thread Webster
NO you are not obligated, morally, ethically or legally, to enable that
service.

 

 

Webster

 

From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: Licensing question for a SBS box transitioned to win2k3

I transitioned a SBS2k3 SBS box to win2k3 and I have bought the licences
packs (no product keys  like SBS but just pieces of paper).

The licenses service is disabled(It remained disabled like in SBS) 
Am I obliged to enable it and register the licences ?(expecially for
Exchange) 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm  ~

RE: Licensing question for a SBS box transitioned to win2k3

2008-04-28 Thread Joe Heaton
That service isn't used in 2k3.
 
Joe Heaton
 



From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 7:16 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: R: Licensing question for a SBS box transitioned to win2k3


and functionally?
 
GuidoElia
HELPPC
 



Da: Webster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Inviato: lunedì 28 aprile 2008 12.16
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: RE: Licensing question for a SBS box transitioned to win2k3



NO you are not obligated, morally, ethically or legally, to enable that service.

 

 

Webster

 

From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: Licensing question for a SBS box transitioned to win2k3

I transitioned a SBS2k3 SBS box to win2k3 and I have bought the licences packs 
(no product keys  like SBS but just pieces of paper).

The licenses service is disabled(It remained disabled like in SBS) 
Am I obliged to enable it and register the licences ?(expecially for Exchange) 








~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm  ~