Another question regarding licensing

Hi all,
I read different statements below and now I'm totally confused. My case is
as following: We want install SQLServer 2000 Standard Edition on a single
processor server. Our application Saperion is the only application which uses
that SQL instance. For Saperion we have a concurrent licensing model. That
means we have defined about 40 user who could use these applicaton, but at
the same time only 20 user have access. So, in maximum 20 user can work with
Saperion with SQL as the database engine.
Now the question is what kind of license do I have to buy. I understand the
processor licensing model, but the device CAL's and User CAL's not!
Thank you for your kind help in this matter.
Regards,
KE
User and device CAL licensing is based on total numbers rather than
concurrent numbers. On the information given it seems you would need 40 user
CALs if you chose the User CAL model. Device CALs are licensed per end-user
device so if you have multiple users sharing a workstation for example then
device CALs may be more cost effective than user CALs.
That's my understanding, but don't take my word for it. Ask a Microsoft
representative if you want a definitive answer.
Lots of info on licensing here:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
You may find the FAQ helpful.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Hi David,
Thank you very much for your answer. 40 user CAL's are not logical for me,
because Saperion never allows us to have more than 20 users online. That
means maximum 20 users can use the SQL server at a certain time. Logical for
me would be 20 user CAL's. If I'm wrong, tell me why......
Best regards,
KE
"David Portas" wrote:

> User and device CAL licensing is based on total numbers rather than
> concurrent numbers. On the information given it seems you would need 40 user
> CALs if you chose the User CAL model. Device CALs are licensed per end-user
> device so if you have multiple users sharing a workstation for example then
> device CALs may be more cost effective than user CALs.
> That's my understanding, but don't take my word for it. Ask a Microsoft
> representative if you want a definitive answer.
> Lots of info on licensing here:
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
> You may find the FAQ helpful.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>
|||SQL Server isn't licensed per CONCURRENT user. The fact that Saperion is
licensed that way wouldn't affect SQL Server licensing.
A user licence grants A USER a licence to use the software so one licence is
required PER USER not per connection or connected user.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Hi David,
Thank you very much for your explanation. In my point of view the SQL
licensing NOT per CONCURRENT user is very strange. Logical for me would be
only the CONCURRENT approach. However MS can do what they want!?!?!?
I have following additional question. Do we need for each SQL server
installation CAL's for all possible user (40 in our case)?
Example 1:
2 SQL Server Standard with user CAL's, 40 user can work with applications,
which use these servers.
Do we need 2 server licenses and 40 CAL's or 80 CAL's?
Example 2:
1 SQL Server Standard with processor license, 1 SQL Server Standard with
user CAL's.
According to MS homepage for the SQL Server with processor license I do not
need any CAL's. Is that correct? If yes, I assume that we need 1 server
license and 40 CAL's for the second SQL installation?
Thank you very much in advance.
Regards,
KE
"David Portas" wrote:

> SQL Server isn't licensed per CONCURRENT user. The fact that Saperion is
> licensed that way wouldn't affect SQL Server licensing.
> A user licence grants A USER a licence to use the software so one licence is
> required PER USER not per connection or connected user.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>
|||Inline below:

> I have following additional question. Do we need for each SQL server
> installation CAL's for all possible user (40 in our case)?
> Example 1:
> 2 SQL Server Standard with user CAL's, 40 user can work with applications,
> which use these servers.
> Do we need 2 server licenses and 40 CAL's or 80 CAL's?
2 server licenses. 40 CAL's. You can look at it like each user has a piece of paper that gives
him/her the right to connect to SQL Servers.

> Example 2:
> 1 SQL Server Standard with processor license, 1 SQL Server Standard with
> user CAL's.
> According to MS homepage for the SQL Server with processor license I do not
> need any CAL's. Is that correct? If yes, I assume that we need 1 server
> license and 40 CAL's for the second SQL installation?
Correct.
FYI: To speak to someone regarding licensing:
You can call 1-800-426-9400 (select option 4), Monday through Friday, 6:00
A.M. to 6:00 P.M. (PST) to speak directly to a Microsoft licensing
specialist for licensing problem. Worldwide customers can use the Guide to
Worldwide Microsoft Licensing Sites
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/index/worldwide.asp to find contact
information in their locations.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"KE" <KE@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7D9A468D-FB00-4D72-AD37-2324CF8C84AF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi David,
> Thank you very much for your explanation. In my point of view the SQL
> licensing NOT per CONCURRENT user is very strange. Logical for me would be
> only the CONCURRENT approach. However MS can do what they want!?!?!?
> I have following additional question. Do we need for each SQL server
> installation CAL's for all possible user (40 in our case)?
> Example 1:
> 2 SQL Server Standard with user CAL's, 40 user can work with applications,
> which use these servers.
> Do we need 2 server licenses and 40 CAL's or 80 CAL's?
> Example 2:
> 1 SQL Server Standard with processor license, 1 SQL Server Standard with
> user CAL's.
> According to MS homepage for the SQL Server with processor license I do not
> need any CAL's. Is that correct? If yes, I assume that we need 1 server
> license and 40 CAL's for the second SQL installation?
> Thank you very much in advance.
> Regards,
> KE
>
>
>
> "David Portas" wrote: