The Licensing FAQ

[sahmeepee]

Teacher or Staff Member – CAL required

 

Student, Alumni, External User, Employer ....... – can all be licensed via an External Connector as an alternative to a CAL

 

We are hopeful that this will be further clarified and simplified in the coming months.

 

They could simplify it by not requiring an external connector for home use if you have a schools agreement. We pay them enough already and they want to sting us to the tune of £1500 effectively for the privilege of using OWA out of school ours. I'm glad I've not opened our OWA up for external use (a political decision from SLT rather than a technical issue) - I definitely would have been caught out by this and I know several schools which should be paying for this already but aren't.

 

I would guess that the majority of schools and possibly some LEAs who use OWA for external access are in this position.

[russdev]

You need a better contact

 

Office is ONLY AND ALWAYS a DEVICE license!

 

And they need to amend the Schools agreement (which I would assume is correct) information in relation to external connectors as it specifically states you can only use it IF you have already purchased the required number of CALS for students.

 

 

Trust me I know who contact is there is not many people higher than this person in Microsoft UK.

 

Tony if could get them to confirm on office license and what to ask for would be useful.

[enjay]

At what point did I need a new licence?

 

So long as you are still using the same power cable, you should be okay ;-)

[enjay]

If the Motherboard is being replaced under warranty, due to failure, then the OEM can legitimately re-install an OS

 

But if I am replacing it myself outside warranty, due to failure, I can't? Well that's a bit odd...

[DMcCoy]

Trust me I know who contact is there is not many people higher than this person in Microsoft UK.

 

Tony if could get them to confirm on office license and what to ask for would be useful.

 

I don't care who they are, I do not sign legal agreements to "their" interpretation of the license agreement. All agreement are based on the terms and conditions laid out by the volume license network operations centre. If thier view of the license is different then the documentation must be changed to accurately reflect the terms of the agreement.

 

What will and won't be prosecuted is not what defines how you interperet it!

[GrumbleDook]

I don't care who they are, I do not sign legal agreements to "their" interpretation of the license agreement. All agreement are based on the terms and conditions laid out by the volume license network operations centre. If thier view of the license is different then the documentation must be changed to accurately reflect the terms of the agreement.

 

What will and won't be prosecuted is not what defines how you interperet it!

 

I agree with you there ... but if we can get what their interpretation of the system is we can then go back and tell them what needs changing to reflect it.

 

The whole MS licence system needs a shake up and some of that is being done.

 

For everything mentioned I am trying to get the links to the relative documents on this too. Without those we cannot get a FAQ created.

 

However, do give a bit of leeway with me here ... trying to use a variety of scenarios and then evidence them looks like it might be the best way. The crux of the issue is now with terminal servers and applications run on them. I have had 3 different explanations of the External Connector from resellers previously and only one, Ramesys, came close to the reality.

 

If we buy from a reseller, we are relying on the resellers interpretation for a chunk of the time. THe FAQ is aimed at making sure you are not ripped off for too many licences, you are not fobbed off with getting too few, and that you have the right versions for what you need.

 

And this is before I have even gotten into Adobe, Symantec, Apple, Serif or the host of smaller companies. I don't think I will even touch Capita and SIMS!

 

Remember folks ... if you have the information and the links to it please do as DMcCoy is doing and post them in.

[CyberNerd]

The whole MS licence system needs a shake up and some of that is being done.

 

Clearly they need to adopt the GPL

[DMcCoy]

I'll go easy on you then Tony, I'm just annoyed with Microsofts complete disregard for existing documentation

 

You can have free external connectors with schools ageement and other volume licenses anyway! http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/7/1/771d8923-9b5e-40ee-86d9-213e0f41b2e8/AcademicGrantLetter(ExternalConnector)(NA)(ENG)(Jul2006)CR.doc

 

You have to read this document several times before it makes sense.

 

The important bit is this "If you acquire Client Access Licenses (CALs) for products that offer External Connector licenses to cover your students and faculty/staff for the entire institution...."

 

So it then states you get the external connectors for free - it still misses students from the list of users as you have already *had* to buy enough CALs for each student anyway. Please note its student *alumni* that get a license granted - alumni being *previous* students who have now left.

 

This is one of the reasons why I'm contesting that their view doesn't tie up with existing documentation. My Office info on the pervious page was taken directly from the latest office licensing guidelines (for 2007).

 

"Licensing basics

A license for Office provides the right to install and use a copy of the software on one personal

computer or other device such as a thin client

. Customers who buy an Ofice license through

Volume Licensing or as a Full Packaged Product may also install an additional copy of the software

on a second, portable device for the exclusive use of the primary user of the irst copy of the

software. Customers who buy an Ofice license through Volume Licensing may install and use any

number of copies of the software and of any prior version of the software on the licensed device."

 

Thats from the Licensing resellers handbook. (text copy from foxit was a bit iffy - spelling is correct on original!)

[DMcCoy]

Any updates? It's gone suspiciously quiet, leading me to believe that I'm right

 

Of course, I always believe that I'm right. It saves time

[GrumbleDook]

You are not right .. merely correct. All blokes should understand that.

 

In truth I am playing catch up on work for the school and LA, and have not had chance to respond to Microsoft's last email. I'll try and get onto it at the end of the week.

[Duds]

Judging by what's already been written in this thread I have the feeling you may all fall about laughing at this question.

 

Is there anywhere that actally explains what is included under my MVL? I have read and re-read the MVLS pages, I can see what agreements I have but nothing explains what is covered under the agreements.

 

I'm new to education and have inherited the license so I really need to know what I can and cannot do.

 

Example: When I got here the school believes that all current students are covered under the agreement for there own personal laptops. So, I can upgrade their O/S install the latest Office suite etc etc. (We're a boarding school BTW)

 

I have asked the license support desk and they say I can but I have conflicting ideas from our license vendor.

 

Is there a simple explaination anywhere??

[DMcCoy]

Ah ha! We've been discussing this on chat, this new page helps. Microsoft disagrees with the statments in this thread

 

https://blogs.msdn.com/irelandlicensing/archive/2008/03/25/licensing-office-in-a-terminal-server-environment.aspx

 

Ireland, but UK is probably the same. Do note the very limited options when accessing Office 2007 on a TS server.

 

Highlights:

 

"Office is licensed per Device, placing it on a TS or Citrix server does not change this licensing model, there is no pooling, no sharing and no concurrency"

 

And:

 

Did you know - with the release of Office 2007, only Volume Licensing, Work at home and Home Use Program Office can be used on a TS, OEM and FPP are not permitted for use on a TS environment

 

OEM Office is not permitted for use on a TS environment this is prohibited in the EULA

 

Office 2007 ULTIMATE FPP can be used on a TS environment, FPP prior to Office 2007 CAN be used on a TS environment.

[DMcCoy]

We have been expanding on the use of Home use Rights and Work at Home rights when purchasing Vol licenses however. So you might be able to get a license for office with those:

 

See:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/uk/education/buy/licensing/buying.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/education/SoftwareAssurance.mspx

 

 

Home use is Software assurance benefit, work at home is Vol license one

[HodgeHi]

I have just read through the thread. The question i needed answering is CALs and upgrades.

 

We needed to purchase a 2nd copy of Server 2003. Since the 2003 r2 version was released we could only purchase this one which allows us to run the previous versions.

 

I would like to now install and run 2003 r2 but would like to know that if to do so would i need to purchase updated CALs to connect to the Server since it is a newer version?

 

I also would like to know if i need to purchase CALs to connect to servers that are not Windows based?

 

I would also like to point out that it stated that Volume licensing is allowed to upgrade the OEM version. Does this mean that it can then be moved from machine to machine?

 

If so this contradicts what i was told when i called MS to find out where i stood. We purchased machines from a company before i arrived and i do not know what version (OEM, retail or edu) came with the machines.

 

What i do know is that they also purchased a volume license key. Does this need annual renewal? Do we own it or do the company that we apparently have leased the hardware from still own it?

 

I have emailed them twice and have still had no clarification on this.

 

Just a few questions :-)

[DMcCoy]

I have just read through the thread. The question i needed answering is CALs and upgrades.

 

We needed to purchase a 2nd copy of Server 2003. Since the 2003 r2 version was released we could only purchase this one which allows us to run the previous versions.

 

I would like to now install and run 2003 r2 but would like to know that if to do so would i need to purchase updated CALs to connect to the Server since it is a newer version?

 

I also would like to know if i need to purchase CALs to connect to servers that are not Windows based?

 

I would also like to point out that it stated that Volume licensing is allowed to upgrade the OEM version. Does this mean that it can then be moved from machine to machine?

 

If so this contradicts what i was told when i called MS to find out where i stood. We purchased machines from a company before i arrived and i do not know what version (OEM, retail or edu) came with the machines.

 

What i do know is that they also purchased a volume license key. Does this need annual renewal? Do we own it or do the company that we apparently have leased the hardware from still own it?

 

I have emailed them twice and have still had no clarification on this.

 

Just a few questions :-)

 

There is only a server 2003 CAL, no difference between R2 and non R2 so they can be used with either.

 

When you upgrade an OEM license with a volume license the volume one inherits the restrictions of the original license, and will become OEM itself. This will really only apply to XP and the other OS upgrade licenses as things like server are full licenses under vol agreements.

[SteveLaw]

Here's one I was wondering about yesterday.

 

Let's say we have one per Device CALs for each of our clients (XP & 2K). But we have 2 servers (and they perform different roles so each client will be using the services of both servers).

 

Do we need 2 CALs per client? Does one CAL cover that user/device to "use" an infinite number of servers?

 

What if there's a trust between domains and they also (on occasion) connect to a server on a different domain for some services?

[tmcd35]

Following on from that, what does a CAL cover access for? Is it just File Sharing access? or Does it cover DHCP and DNS requests? If I set up a windows DHCP server (and that was the only role of the server) do I need a CAL for another machiner to request an IP? What about Print Sharing? or ISS? Do a I need a CAL for each client accessing a web page?

[tmcd35]

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sam/lic_cal_win2003_server.mspx

 

So, 1xCAL (per user or per device) licences for user/device to access as many servers within domain as required. So 1 CAL for 2 servers, 10 servers, 100 servers - whatever so long as they are on the same domain.

 

A CAL is only required for accessing services that require AD authentication. So a CAL is required to access a file server or a print server. But no CAL's required to communicate with a Windows Server used purely for DHCP, DNS or IIS.

[SteveLaw]

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sam/lic_cal_win2003_server.mspx

 

So, 1xCAL (per user or per device) licences for user/device to access as many servers within domain as required. So 1 CAL for 2 servers, 10 servers, 100 servers - whatever so long as they are on the same domain.

 

I read that very page before I asked the question. It doesn't actually state anything as clear as that. Where did you get that specific information from? The term it uses all the way through that page is "the server software". "The server", not "servers" or "server(s)" or in fact, "domain" or similar (domain isn't even mentioned). This is where confusion and (mis)interpretation comes in.

 

But if that's true then clients accessing servers on another domain will need CALs on both domains. I wonder how many actually do? What if the domain is managed by someone else? They would have to get CALs for you to connect...

 

A CAL is only required for accessing services that require AD authentication. So a CAL is required to access a file server or a print server. But no CAL's required to communicate with a Windows Server used purely for DHCP, DNS or IIS.

 

Again, Active Directory is never mentioned on that page, where did you get that specific definition?

 

(I'm not saying your definitions aren't correct, btw, I would just like to know where the specifics came from, because I can't see how you can get them from that CAL Guide.)

Edited October 12, 2008 by SteveLaw

[tmcd35]

This means you can choose to acquire a Windows CAL for every device (used by any user) accessing your servers,

Note: "a Windows CAL" - singular - for "accessing your servers" - plural

 

Windows CALs are not required when access to the server software is unauthenticated

Authenticated access is defined as an exchange of user or application credentials between the server software and a user or device

As Windows authenticates via AD this says that services like DHCP, DNS and public IIS, which do not need authentication do not need a CAL. But service such as file sharing, print sharing, SQL, etc that require the user/device to authenticate against AD will require a CAL.

[SteveLaw]

Firstly, how many CALs...

 

You use:

This means you can choose to acquire a Windows CAL for every device (used by any user) accessing your servers,

Note: "a Windows CAL" - singular - for "accessing your servers" - plural

 

But then:

Windows CALs are required when accessing or using the server software.

 

Note: CALs plural, server singular.

 

Basing interpretation on grammar is not necessarily going to yield accurate results. As you can see both interpretations are contradicted within the same page.

 

For another example, authentication:

Windows CALs are not required when access to the server software is unauthenticated and conducted through the Internet.

 

"And conducted through the Internet" changes things quite a bit. Plus what about file sharing where there is an "everyone" permission? That is not authenticated. You can also set IIS to authenticate from AD, thus it is authenticated. Both are the opposite of your statements.

Edited October 13, 2008 by SteveLaw

[User3204]

...Plus what about file sharing where there is an "everyone" permission? That is not authenticated...

 

Everyone IS authenticated, if it was unauthenticated you use "Anonymous", although I do get confused between "Everyone" and "Authenticated Users"...

 

You're complicating a simple system.

 

CAL = Client Access License, right.

 

So:

if you have 100 Clients connecting to 1 Server, you need 100 CALs;

if you have 100 Clients connecting to 10 Servers, you need 100 CALs;

if you have 50 Clients connecting to 5 servers in domain A, and a different 50 clients connecting to 15 servers in domain B, you need 100 CALs;

if you have 40 clients connecting to 5 servers in domain A, and a different 40 clients connecting to 15 servers in domain B, and another 20 clients connecting to the whole 20 servers in both domains (100 clients total), you need 100 CALs;

 

There is a complication, if you are on certain Microsoft agreements, in that there are CALs for Staff, and different CALs for Students. They also have CALs for Windows (as above), or SQL / Sharepoint, etc. I think there is also a CAL relevant to people that access your data (through an authenticated Sharepoint session) but who aren't part of your business/school.

 

Anonymous (IE unauthenticated), means, you can make FTP / HTTP / SMB / Whatever, access your site, across the internet, usually, this is meant to be your website.

Edited October 13, 2008 by User3204

[SteveLaw]

So domain doesn't matter? That's another contradiction to previous advice.

 

Again though, is the above your interpretation only or have you found a clear, specific explanation elsewhere?

 

(Incidentally I believe you can set "Everyone" to include "Anonymous" and/or "Guest" (I think it does by default on 2000); you can't include them in "Authenticated User".)

[SteveLaw]

To add further fuel to the problem, I was recently informed, by a source I generally trust, that with Windows 2003 each networked printer also needs a CAL...

[User3204]

Nah. Not unless you have printers with windows installed on it.

 

Even if it did have Embedded windows, this is something that the manufacturer would have to pay fro, not you.

 

 

 

 

I just scared myself there... A printer using Embedded Windows ... arrgghh