Re: Licensing question
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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 dont 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 thats 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 ~