Microsoft Server OS licensing

[Brazen]

Ok, so right now the company I work for has a Windows 2000 domain with all Windows 2000 servers. When they purchased this stuff (before I was hired to administer it) they purchased 300 client CALS for the domain and 300 client CALs for the Exchange 2000 server.

Now I'm wondering, if we upgrade to a Windows 2003 domain controller and Exchange 2003 email server, do we need to purchase new CALs for 2003 or is just purchasing the license for the OS and the Exchange Server software enough since we already have old CALs?

 

[Genx87]

2000 CALs dont transfer to 2003 afaik and neither do Exchange 2000 to 2003.

You would be looking at repurchasing all of those CALs for the upgrade.

 

[PingSpike]

I can't remember for sure, but I believe 2K cals CAN be used for 2k3 servers. I don't believe NT cals will work (legally of course) though.

Edit: Gen87 may well be right. We never purchased 2K cals here...we went right from novell to 2k3.

 

[Genx87]

Well if I am wrong the company who we purchase our OS licenses from has some splaining to do

I am 99% sure that is the case.

 

[PingSpike]

I think I was actually getting it backwards. You can use 2k3 cals for 2K servers right?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I think I was actually getting it backwards. You can use 2k3 cals for 2K servers right?

that is what they said. They are backwards compatible but not forward.

 

[Brazen]

That is always what I thought, I just thought I would check to make sure I understood correctly. That deal kinda sucks.

 

[Genx87]

Yeah, that is one of the reasons why upgrade cycles are so slow. You want to hold onto those CALs as long as possible due to cost.

 

[RebateMonger]

You need new User or Device CALS for the new Server OS. I don't recall the price of Exchange 2003 CALS, but Windows Server 2003 CALS are $50 retail. Since most people use Servers for about five years, it'll be about $15 per person, per year, for licensing.

 

[Brazen]

So what services require a CAL to access it? For instance, if I set up a 2003 webserver, I wouldn't have to purchase CALs for the thousands of people that could potentially access it, right? What if it's not a domain controller, but just a print server or a just a file server... or just a DHCP server... then do I have to purchase CALs?

 

[Genx87]

afaik IIS does not require any cals.
Terminal, exchange, and anybody who actually uses the server, file users have to purchase a CAL, I think even print users will require one.

I am not sure about DHCP however.

 

[nweaver]

wow...this encourages me to upgrade. I think I'll wait for the next rev of samba, that will support AD authentication for my fileservers.


Anyone know if the current version of samba supports LDAP auth to AD?

 

[spyordie007]

Yeah, that is one of the reasons why upgrade cycles are so slow. You want to hold onto those CALs as long as possible due to cost.

This is why I have software assurance on my CALs as well as my Software.

if I set up a 2003 webserver, I wouldn't have to purchase CALs for the thousands of people that could potentially access it, right?

afaik IIS does not require any cals

IIS does not require CALs for unauthenticated sessions (I.E. your public website). However CALS are required for authenticated sessions (I.E. OWA or Sharepoint).

-Erik

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Brazen
So what services require a CAL to access it? For instance, if I set up a 2003 webserver, I wouldn't have to purchase CALs for the thousands of people that could potentially access it, right? What if it's not a domain controller, but just a print server or a just a file server... or just a DHCP server... then do I have to purchase CALs?

Windows Server CALS are required any time you or a device have to create an AUTHENTICATED connection to that server. ANONYMOUS IIS connections don't require authentication.

 

[Tsaico]

You know, I have this same problem here. Never sure if I am compliant or not 100%. But the cals only go backwards, not forward, and yes, Exchange will need all new cals for it. But talk to volume licesning rep at MS. They can tell you what you need, and I also agree with software assurance. It might be a little more expensive in the 1st price, but it can shorten your upgrade cycle.

Good luck, MS licensing requirements have been plaguing admins for years...

 

[jwhitt]

nweaver...i think samba will auth ldap.... never used it though, but i think i read that it would sorry for being vauge

 

[Nothinman]

Anyone know if the current version of samba supports LDAP auth to AD?

Not sure about LDAP directly, but you should be able to use winbindd.

Also, this thread makes me glad I don't have to worry about all of this crap. Licensing on Linux is so much simpler. =)

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Anyone know if the current version of samba supports LDAP auth to AD?

Not sure about LDAP directly, but you should be able to use winbindd.

Also, this thread makes me glad I don't have to worry about all of this crap. Licensing on Linux is so much simpler. =)

and before n0c mentions it...licensing on BSD is even easier

 

[Nothinman]

and before n0c mentions it...licensing on BSD is even easier

Depends on what you plan on doing with the code, for plain usage they're both the same. If you want to use some code in your own program they're both still really simple, it's just a case of whether or not you can abide by the reciprocation required by the GPL.

 

[cleverhandle]

Originally posted by: nweaver
Anyone know if the current version of samba supports LDAP auth to AD?

Yes, Samba 3 can act as a true member server in a Windows AD domain - K5 ticket checking, LDAP, and all. It can't yet work as a domain controller, though - that's planned for Samba 4.