Application roles Licensing

I am trying to verify some information that was given to me by another (riva
l) admin, I was told by him that you can use the server plus user CAL licens
ing model and buy only enough CAL's to cover as many application roles you u
se. Is this correct because
if it is, we spent way too much money on licensing and I think that Microsof
t would want to change their licensing policy in these regards. Sorry I didn
't know what other Discussion Group to post this question. Thanks for any he
lp on this matter."DanielG" <DanielG@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5F87CAE9-2435-4BFD-96D3-15AC1E9A901B@.microsoft.com...
> I am trying to verify some information that was given to me by another
(rival) admin, I was told by him that you can use the server plus user CAL
licensing model and buy only enough CAL's to cover as many application roles
you use. Is this correct because if it is, we spent way too much money on
licensing and I think that Microsoft would want to change their licensing
policy in these regards. Sorry I didn't know what other Discussion Group to
post this question. Thanks for any help on this matter.
I had not heard of cals based on application roles... There is a licensing
white paper you may want to
check(http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtob...erlicensing.asp). While
this does a fair job, it always seems like you need to talk to a lawyer to
get the full story!
Steve|||Thank you for your reply; I did read the document before I posted (posting i
s usually the last step I take) but there is no reference to application rol
es. In theory it does seem possible to just buy a CAL for each application r
ole, I mean logically it is
just one user logging in several times right?
"Steve Thompson" wrote:

> "DanielG" <DanielG@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5F87CAE9-2435-4BFD-96D3-15AC1E9A901B@.microsoft.com...
> (rival) admin, I was told by him that you can use the server plus user CAL
> licensing model and buy only enough CAL's to cover as many application rol
es
> you use. Is this correct because if it is, we spent way too much money on
> licensing and I think that Microsoft would want to change their licensing
> policy in these regards. Sorry I didn't know what other Discussion Group t
o
> post this question. Thanks for any help on this matter.
> I had not heard of cals based on application roles... There is a licensing
> white paper you may want to
> check(http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtob...erlicensing.asp). While
> this does a fair job, it always seems like you need to talk to a lawyer to
> get the full story!
> Steve
>
>|||I believe your rival is wrong. I'm not sure if CAL's are required for each
user or each system (computer) that accesses the server, but it's definitely
not by application role.
Mike Kruchten
"DanielG" <DanielG@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5F87CAE9-2435-4BFD-96D3-15AC1E9A901B@.microsoft.com...
> I am trying to verify some information that was given to me by another
(rival) admin, I was told by him that you can use the server plus user CAL
licensing model and buy only enough CAL's to cover as many application roles
you use. Is this correct because if it is, we spent way too much money on
licensing and I think that Microsoft would want to change their licensing
policy in these regards. Sorry I didn't know what other Discussion Group to
post this question. Thanks for any help on this matter.|||My thought would be you could use CAL licensing if there's a way you can ide
ntify who is logging in before the application role takes over. That's wher
e the licensing takes place, not at the role level. If you can't identify w
ho is logging in, a process
or license is required.
"DGroebe" wrote:

> Thank you for your reply; I did read the document before I posted (posting is usua
lly the last step I take) but there is no reference to application roles. In theory
it does seem possible to just buy a CAL for each application role, I mean logically
it
is just one user logging in several times right?[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Steve Thompson" wrote:
>