Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Is Client Access License (CAL) really necessary?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 daredavel

daredavel

  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:04 AM

Posted 12 March 2016 - 08:41 AM

We have a licensed Windows server 2000 and SQL server 2005. It's been working for 7 years now and we've been using an application to access the database. Any client computer (without CAL) with the application can access the server and can connect.

 

As we are now planing to have a second server as backup (licensed Windows server 2012 r2 and SQL server 2014) to support the primary server we have, it is possible not to purchase CAL for the clients? Since we will be using a newer version of Windows OS server and SQL server, will we have a problem when connecting to the server? As I have read, client computers without CAL will have a problem accessing the servers, that true?


Edited by daredavel, 12 March 2016 - 08:44 AM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 x64

x64

  • Members
  • 352 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK
  • Local time:04:04 PM

Posted 12 March 2016 - 03:20 PM

You need CALs that match the highest version of each of the server products that you use in order to be legal. There isn't a techically inposed block on access if you don't have the correct CAL, but you're using the software illegally without the correct ones.

 

For avoidence of doubt, the SQL server specifically states that multiplexing SQL coonnections through another server based application does reduce the need for cals dor each benefiting user - you still need a Windows CAL and a SQL cal for each user on your network (dont use per-device cals in your circulstances)  

 

x64



#3 daredavel

daredavel
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:04 AM

Posted 12 March 2016 - 09:06 PM

You need CALs that match the highest version of each of the server products that you use in order to be legal. There isn't a techically inposed block on access if you don't have the correct CAL, but you're using the software illegally without the correct ones.

 

For avoidence of doubt, the SQL server specifically states that multiplexing SQL coonnections through another server based application does reduce the need for cals dor each benefiting user - you still need a Windows CAL and a SQL cal for each user on your network (dont use per-device cals in your circulstances)  

 

x64

 

I see. It's for legality purposes. Kinda clear to me now.



#4 Wand3r3r

Wand3r3r

  • Members
  • 2,027 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:04 AM

Posted 13 March 2016 - 12:18 AM

Legal isn't the only consideration.

 

Odds are your application will not work with the new SQL version.  Old code doesn't run on new code.

 

The old model of an application making a pipe connection and allowing the app to control client access is over.  Last two clinical apps I worked with would only allow as many sql connections as you had client licenses for.  That means if the app would allow 100 users but they only had 50 sql cals they were limited to 50.

 

Something to consider.



#5 daredavel

daredavel
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:04 AM

Posted 15 March 2016 - 06:26 AM

Legal isn't the only consideration.

 

Odds are your application will not work with the new SQL version.  Old code doesn't run on new code.

 

The old model of an application making a pipe connection and allowing the app to control client access is over.  Last two clinical apps I worked with would only allow as many sql connections as you had client licenses for.  That means if the app would allow 100 users but they only had 50 sql cals they were limited to 50.

 

Something to consider.

 

I see. So our current setup will no longer work with the updated server OS and  SQL server. That means we have to secure both server OS cal and SQL server cal in every client station we have?



#6 Wand3r3r

Wand3r3r

  • Members
  • 2,027 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:04 AM

Posted 15 March 2016 - 07:42 PM

You can't use 2000 cals on 2012 and its the same for SQL.  Interesting enough you can use 2012 on 2000

 

You need to talk to your application vendor to make sure they have a update or support the app running on the newer versions.


Edited by Wand3r3r, 15 March 2016 - 07:42 PM.


#7 daredavel

daredavel
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:04 AM

Posted 15 March 2016 - 07:47 PM

You can't use 2000 cals on 2012 and its the same for SQL.  Interesting enough you can use 2012 on 2000

 

You need to talk to your application vendor to make sure they have a update or support the app running on the newer versions.

 

Thank you for that. If our current app can support the new versions, then we'll have to secure both server OS client cal and SQL server client cal on every unit we have. I'll be a lot of cash burning then.  :hysterical:



#8 Wand3r3r

Wand3r3r

  • Members
  • 2,027 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:04 AM

Posted 17 March 2016 - 10:02 AM

Your vendor should be able to tell you all about licensing for their product.



#9 daredavel

daredavel
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:04 AM

Posted 18 March 2016 - 09:56 AM

Your vendor should be able to tell you all about licensing for their product.

will do..thank you!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users