Windows Server licenses

[farscapesg1]

OK, I'm so confused with this and no one that I talk to in our company seems to have the same answer.

I work in the IT department of a hospital owned by a larger corporation. Our company has a deal with Microsoft that we pay an annual fee for basically free upgrades to the OS on the systems. Personally I think it is silly since we purchase all our computers from Dell, which already come with the latest version of Windows installed with their own OEM windows keys.

Now the question comes when installing a new server. During the Windows 2003 installation it gives you a choice of licensing per server or per clients. Doesn't the CAL that comes with the desktops cover this? Should I be setting them up per server or per workstation? Our corporate offices give me different answers on this.

Can someone explain the "legal" way of making sure that the licensing is set up correctly in our facility? I think it would be stupid to have to purchase CALs for each machine per server (considering we have several servers in the facility).

 

[dphantom]

welcome to the club. MS licensing is complicated.

For your servers, probably per client is what you are looking for. Windows XP/2000 come with a built in terminal services CAL so if rnning TS you won;t need a separate CAL like if you were running NT or Win9X.

You would need CALs for accessing server based applications. A Client Access License is just that, a license to access a resource on a server.

So for Exchange 2003 for instance, you would need to purchase an Exchange CAL. Just having Outlook on a client PC is not enough.

As for your OEM OS licenses, if you are already on MS Software Assurance which it sounds like you are and that is covering the desktop operating licenses, I am not sure why your company does not specify in their purchase of desktops to not include the OEM version of the OS. You've already got the CALs for the desktop OS, or am I missing something?

Otherwise, I think your company may be wasting a bit of money.

 

[RebateMonger]

I don't think the OP mentioned Terminal Services Licenses. Actually, XP no longer includes a TS license for Windows Server 2003. That stopped a couple of years ago.

Description of Windows Server 2003 Licensing model.

Per Server mode limits the number of concurrent connections to a Server. This mode is normally used if you only have one Server.

User and Device CALS are usually used if you have multiple Servers. A User CAL gives a SINGLE user the right to access any Windows Server. A Device CAL gives a SINGLE device (computer, PDA, SmartPhone, etc.) the right to access any Windows Server.

As I understand it, Microsoft doesn't PHYSICALLY enforce the licensing on Server 2003. They do on SBS 2003.

Whether Software Assurance makes sense for your company depends on many factors. SA also offers some additional benefits (including training courses and a license for a hot backup server).

 

[farscapesg1]

OK, so is a Device CAL different than the COA that comes with OEM systems like Dell?

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: farscapesg1
OK, so is a Device CAL different than the COA that comes with OEM systems like Dell?

I assume you are talking about Dell SERVER COAs? The COAs on Dell desktop computers, of course, only cover the license for the desktop OS (XP, for instance).

The Server COA gives you the license for the basic Server software, along with the base number of CALs (5). You can use the base CALs for Per Server licensing, or as User or Device CALS. Which way you go depends upon the number of servers, users, and devices you have.

Assuming that you have several Servers, you'd normally acquire either User or Device CALS. Getting them all the same simplifies the accounting. If you have more users than computers, then you'd probably want Device CALs. If you have more computers than users, then you'd be better off with User CALs. You get the type of CAL that will cover whichever is smaller: your users or your devices.

Of course, you also need appropriate CALS for any Server applications you are running, such as Exchange or SQL or TS. Those are managed separately from the Windows Server licensing. TS CALS, for instance, are strictly enforced in Server 2003 by a Terminal Server Licensing Server. On the other hand, Microsoft encourages you to turn your Windows Licensing Services OFF, since, apparently, it is broken.

 

[spyordie007]

I work in the IT department of a hospital owned by a larger corporation. Our company has a deal with Microsoft that we pay an annual fee for basically free upgrades to the OS on the systems. Personally I think it is silly since we purchase all our computers from Dell, which already come with the latest version of Windows installed with their own OEM windows keys.

The Windows Client volume license agreement only covers OS upgrades; so the machines need to come from the OEM with a version of Windows. That "free upgrade" that you're referring to is called "Software Assurance"; basically you're paying to ensure you get upgrades as they are released (a lot of software vendors have similar licensing models).

Just like RebateMonger said it's almost certain that you should be setting the servers up for client licensing (the 2nd option during the install).

It sounds like you have someone at corporate managing the licensing with Microsoft (which is a good idea); this makes your life easier since it gives you less to worry about. 😉

 

[Tsaico]

This is all sound advice, and I would also agree that the hospital should just buy their servers without an os. And I never understood why Microsoft just didn't build the client access license in to the workstation OS. So Windows XP Pro comes with the right to access the network resource, or installing Outlook does for exchange. I hate how they do it now... makes it so easy to be non-compliant.