Prev: RpPrinter
Next: Another bBrowser Newbie Question
From: Roger Lawton on 19 Feb 2010 11:41
This may be a bit off topic but I know a lot of you guys use SQL Server and
have a bit more experience in the licensing issue than I.

Our product uses SQL Server for the database and we access the data using a
UDL file that is normally in a hidden location. Most of our clients
implement specific user authentication (so the UDL contains the UserID and
Password), some of them use Windows Authentication. The vast majority of
our clients have either a processor license for SQL Server or they use SQL
Server Express. We also have a browser based app that is a compliment to
our VO app. The browser based app access the SQL Server data using the same
UDL file.

The problem I am having is that we have a new (prospective) client that uses
the CAL licensing model. Their IT department feels that this licensing
model makes the way that we access the database illegal. My question is
does anyone else do this kind of access? If so how does this work? Do we
need to change to a processor license? Should we use an SQL Server Express
instance and not even use their instance? Is ther another method?

Thanks for any help.
--
Roger Lawton
Product Manager
SOMAX, Inc.

From: Ginny Caughey on 19 Feb 2010 17:12
Roger,

If your CAL-based client is already maxed out on users for the CALs they've
purchased, it seems to me they could either purchase more or (if you data
fits on SQL Express) use SQL Express for your data. Putting your data on
their server for more users than they've purchased doesn't sound right to me
though.

I think somebody should look at the cost of converting them to per-processor
licensing.

--

Ginny Caughey
www.wasteworks.com




"Roger Lawton" <nsproger(a)nspsomax.com> wrote in message
news:hlmf09$336$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
> This may be a bit off topic but I know a lot of you guys use SQL Server
> and have a bit more experience in the licensing issue than I.
>
> Our product uses SQL Server for the database and we access the data using
> a UDL file that is normally in a hidden location. Most of our clients
> implement specific user authentication (so the UDL contains the UserID and
> Password), some of them use Windows Authentication. The vast majority of
> our clients have either a processor license for SQL Server or they use SQL
> Server Express. We also have a browser based app that is a compliment to
> our VO app. The browser based app access the SQL Server data using the
> same UDL file.
>
> The problem I am having is that we have a new (prospective) client that
> uses the CAL licensing model. Their IT department feels that this
> licensing model makes the way that we access the database illegal. My
> question is does anyone else do this kind of access? If so how does this
> work? Do we need to change to a processor license? Should we use an SQL
> Server Express instance and not even use their instance? Is ther another
> method?
>
> Thanks for any help.
> --
> Roger Lawton
> Product Manager
> SOMAX, Inc.

From: Roger Lawton on 19 Feb 2010 19:07
Ginny:

Thanks for the response.

The client is purchasing both our "standard" vo app and our browser based
app. Several users will be accessing the SQL Server from their desktop
machines. The problem is that from the browser based app there are dozens
of people that are going to access the SQL Server data from essentially the
one machine (the machine hosting the web based app). The desktop users are
simple, they use their CAL to access the server. The browser based users
are a different story. The IT Manager believes that this is illegal under
the CAL EULA. I don't really know if he is correct on that issue. Is that
considered one user (I would not think so), but how can he/we track the
users?

The first response I gave him was that he should just purchase a processor
license. He is (currently) not willing to do that.

Do you (or anyone else) have any customers that work in this "hybrid"
manner?

Thanks for the help


--
Roger Lawton
Product Manager
SOMAX, Inc.


"Ginny Caughey" <ginny.caughey.online(a)wasteworks.com> wrote in message
news:4b7f0c87$0$1493$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
> Roger,
>
> If your CAL-based client is already maxed out on users for the CALs
> they've purchased, it seems to me they could either purchase more or (if
> you data fits on SQL Express) use SQL Express for your data. Putting your
> data on their server for more users than they've purchased doesn't sound
> right to me though.
>
> I think somebody should look at the cost of converting them to
> per-processor licensing.
>
> --
>
> Ginny Caughey
> www.wasteworks.com
>
>
>
>
> "Roger Lawton" <nsproger(a)nspsomax.com> wrote in message
> news:hlmf09$336$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
>> This may be a bit off topic but I know a lot of you guys use SQL Server
>> and have a bit more experience in the licensing issue than I.
>>
>> Our product uses SQL Server for the database and we access the data using
>> a UDL file that is normally in a hidden location. Most of our clients
>> implement specific user authentication (so the UDL contains the UserID
>> and Password), some of them use Windows Authentication. The vast
>> majority of our clients have either a processor license for SQL Server or
>> they use SQL Server Express. We also have a browser based app that is a
>> compliment to our VO app. The browser based app access the SQL Server
>> data using the same UDL file.
>>
>> The problem I am having is that we have a new (prospective) client that
>> uses the CAL licensing model. Their IT department feels that this
>> licensing model makes the way that we access the database illegal. My
>> question is does anyone else do this kind of access? If so how does this
>> work? Do we need to change to a processor license? Should we use an SQL
>> Server Express instance and not even use their instance? Is ther another
>> method?
>>
>> Thanks for any help.
>> --
>> Roger Lawton
>> Product Manager
>> SOMAX, Inc.
>

From: Ginny Caughey on 19 Feb 2010 20:48
Roger,

I don't know if he's correct or not. Most of our customers choose processor
licensing, so it's just not an issue for them. How many processors does your
client's server have? Usually processor licensing is less expensive than
CALs past a certain point.

That said, if your app would work fine with SQL Express, that would
certainly be an easy and legal solution. Just have SQL Express host your
data. SQL Express and SQL Server can coexist on the same physical server.
You can still use integrated security - you just can't have databases bigger
than 4 GB or use SQL Express as a merge replication publisher (which you're
not doing anyway).

Anyway, I'd suggest asking on a Microsoft SQL Server forum for a more
experienced answer if your app needs to share the same database with the
rest of the company. Perhaps IIS just counts as a single CAL - I just don't
know.

--

Ginny Caughey
www.wasteworks.com




"Roger Lawton" <nsproger(a)nspsomax.com> wrote in message
news:hln93n$b9a$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
> Ginny:
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> The client is purchasing both our "standard" vo app and our browser based
> app. Several users will be accessing the SQL Server from their desktop
> machines. The problem is that from the browser based app there are dozens
> of people that are going to access the SQL Server data from essentially
> the one machine (the machine hosting the web based app). The desktop users
> are simple, they use their CAL to access the server. The browser based
> users are a different story. The IT Manager believes that this is illegal
> under the CAL EULA. I don't really know if he is correct on that issue.
> Is that considered one user (I would not think so), but how can he/we
> track the users?
>
> The first response I gave him was that he should just purchase a processor
> license. He is (currently) not willing to do that.
>
> Do you (or anyone else) have any customers that work in this "hybrid"
> manner?
>
> Thanks for the help
>
>
> --
> Roger Lawton
> Product Manager
> SOMAX, Inc.
>
>
> "Ginny Caughey" <ginny.caughey.online(a)wasteworks.com> wrote in message
> news:4b7f0c87$0$1493$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>> Roger,
>>
>> If your CAL-based client is already maxed out on users for the CALs
>> they've purchased, it seems to me they could either purchase more or (if
>> you data fits on SQL Express) use SQL Express for your data. Putting your
>> data on their server for more users than they've purchased doesn't sound
>> right to me though.
>>
>> I think somebody should look at the cost of converting them to
>> per-processor licensing.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ginny Caughey
>> www.wasteworks.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Roger Lawton" <nsproger(a)nspsomax.com> wrote in message
>> news:hlmf09$336$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
>>> This may be a bit off topic but I know a lot of you guys use SQL Server
>>> and have a bit more experience in the licensing issue than I.
>>>
>>> Our product uses SQL Server for the database and we access the data
>>> using a UDL file that is normally in a hidden location. Most of our
>>> clients implement specific user authentication (so the UDL contains the
>>> UserID and Password), some of them use Windows Authentication. The vast
>>> majority of our clients have either a processor license for SQL Server
>>> or they use SQL Server Express. We also have a browser based app that
>>> is a compliment to our VO app. The browser based app access the SQL
>>> Server data using the same UDL file.
>>>
>>> The problem I am having is that we have a new (prospective) client that
>>> uses the CAL licensing model. Their IT department feels that this
>>> licensing model makes the way that we access the database illegal. My
>>> question is does anyone else do this kind of access? If so how does
>>> this work? Do we need to change to a processor license? Should we use
>>> an SQL Server Express instance and not even use their instance? Is ther
>>> another method?
>>>
>>> Thanks for any help.
>>> --
>>> Roger Lawton
>>> Product Manager
>>> SOMAX, Inc.
>>
>
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: RpPrinter
Next: Another bBrowser Newbie Question