March 1, 2012 at 10:29 am
siva 20997 (3/1/2012)
Similarly Mobile phone is not the device. The bluetooth device which recoganises Mobile Phone's presence is the device
So the bluetooth device is what connects to the database? If so, that probably is one device licence, the phones aren't directly or indirectly accessing the database, no more than the access cards are.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
March 1, 2012 at 10:33 am
siva 20997 (3/1/2012)
If they agree single cal is enough for this then a IIS allowing multiple users will be a single cal too I think
An IIS server that serves up web pages that pull data from SQL Server is not a user. The data is sent on to end users (it's got nothing to do with authentication, anonymous users would be treated the same). An IIS server that connects to SQL server and serves data to up to 300 users requires 300 user CALs. The end users are the users.
Now, if those end users all accessed the database through a fixed number of devices (say there are 3 computers that are shared between those 300 users), you might be able to use 3 device CALs, but only if those 300 users can only use those 3 computers and there is no other way to get at the pages served up.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
March 1, 2012 at 10:55 am
You said
So the bluetooth device is what connects to the database? If so, that probably is one device licence, the phones aren't directly or indirectly accessing the database, no more than the access cards are.
You are assuming that the access cards and the mobile phones just doing a simple task. That is logging in and out of a clocking in system. It will be possible to do many more things using both technologies like monitoring job tasks ( Job NO, Start) and (Job No Finish). The bluetoth device picks it up and does the necessary on the SQl server
So that factory staff will be able to indicate back the job is finished, how many pieces they have done etc etc without having to text back. These are making real changes to the SQL server database. The blue tooth device is acting like IIS server
My point is that you can not have one rule for the IIS server and another for Bluetooth device. In fact I do not need the IIs server. I could develop the middle tier myself using the technologies available to me. So I dont see the differnce
March 1, 2012 at 11:17 am
It's not about IIS, it's about multiplexing. If you write a middle tier that allows multiple people to access data on SQL Server simultaneously, then you are mutliplexing and you must license the users, not the device/app server/software.
If you have phones that are connecting to a device through bluetooth, and updating a server, technically the phones are performing data manipulation themselves, and require CALs. The reader is essentially a network device that just receives the data.
I don't make the rules, but from my reading of MS licensing, what you are proposing will violate the license. If you do not have CALs or a per CPU license, you could be sued/fined/etc. by MS for the license costs.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
March 1, 2012 at 11:34 am
siva 20997 (3/1/2012)
You saidSo the bluetooth device is what connects to the database? If so, that probably is one device licence, the phones aren't directly or indirectly accessing the database, no more than the access cards are.
You are assuming that the access cards and the mobile phones just doing a simple task. That is logging in and out of a clocking in system. It will be possible to do many more things using both technologies like monitoring job tasks ( Job NO, Start) and (Job No Finish). The bluetoth device picks it up and does the necessary on the SQl server
So that factory staff will be able to indicate back the job is finished, how many pieces they have done etc etc without having to text back. These are making real changes to the SQL server database. The blue tooth device is acting like IIS server
I was thinking that is was a simple case of 'bluetooth device picks up existence of phone and does something on SQL as a result', much like 'card reader detects card and does something on SQL as a result'. If it was that case, then the bluetooth device would be the only thing interacting with the DB and a single license would be needed.
If the phones are actually being used as devices to touch SQL (via anything else), that's something different.
My point is that you can not have one rule for the IIS server and another for Bluetooth device. In fact I do not need the IIs server. I could develop the middle tier myself using the technologies available to me. So I dont see the differnce
If the bluetooth device is allowing the phones to do stuff on SQL then there is no difference, you'll need device/user CALs for each and every phone/user, same as IIS, same as your own custom-developed middle tier, so there isn't one rule for one and one for the other.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
March 1, 2012 at 11:40 am
Yes I agree about multiplexing etc what you have said. I did say earlier a bluetooth device will not be considered same as card swipe. It might look like that at the start but it will be considered a device of it's own as the useage of it increases in the functions what can be done
Now let me approach it from a differnt angle
If I have a PC sitting at the HO with a single device cal and I remote in to it I was told I was told that the remote work station would need a Cal. I see that. However if I use LogMeIn or something similar to connect to my Host Pc and do the work then I think it is a single Cal. My remote PC is not doing any work other than acting like extending my arms all the way to Host PC
So having say 2 or 3 host PCs and letting the 300 users login using that method would need only 3 device cals
So when I multiplex it I need 300 Cals when I give remote access like logmein it is 3 cals
I am not planning on doing anything outside the law, but the law is there to be chalanged where it is found to be inappropriate. I strongly feel that number of cals a multiplexing middle tier needs is depended on the maximum number of concurrent connections
I also have to advice my customers what is best for them and not products which would hurt them finacially. It would be easy for me to develop the website using SQL Express and leave the internal system on 20 userSQL Standard. Someone said this may be me cicumventing the system. I dont think so as we are developing appropriate system as the case may dictate
March 1, 2012 at 11:49 am
If 5 Accounts Staff work on excel to prepare all the invoices and give it to head of department to post it to a accounting system based on SQL we need only one cal
Now similarly if 100 mobile phones or even PCs communucate with my midlle tier throughout the day and I update the SQL server once a hour, or once a day then I would need only 1 Cal. If I start updating it immidiatley then your argument holds true
It is all to with what the middle tier does. So what is the realistic time interval beyond which it would need a single Cal
March 1, 2012 at 12:05 pm
siva 20997 (3/1/2012)
If 5 Accounts Staff work on excel to prepare all the invoices and give it to head of department to post it to a accounting system based on SQL we need only one cal
Yes, because the head of department is the only person that is using SQL. The other people are not accessing the server in any way at all.
Now similarly if 100 mobile phones or even PCs communucate with my midlle tier throughout the day and I update the SQL server once a hour, or once a day then I would need only 1 Cal.
I don't believe so. The end users are still the people communicating with the database (reading and writing even if it delayed), there's not a single person that touches the database, there are 100 people.
It's not about delays, it's not about intermediate machines or hosts. It's about the number of end users or end devices. In your first example the head of department is the only user, in your second there are 100 users.
If I have a PC sitting at the HO with a single device cal and I remote in to it I was told I was told that the remote work station would need a Cal. I see that. However if I use LogMeIn or something similar to connect to my Host Pc and do the work then I think it is a single Cal. My remote PC is not doing any work other than acting like extending my arms all the way to Host PC
If LogMeIn is just a way of extending your arms to the server, so is remote desktop. With remote desktop your remote PC also does not other work than running the remote access software (TeamViewer, LogMeIn, Remote Desktop, etc, etc). Same idea, different application only. So if remote desktop needs a CAL, so will any other method of accessing that server
I am not planning on doing anything outside the law, but the law is there to be chalanged where it is found to be inappropriate. I strongly feel that number of cals a multiplexing middle tier needs is depended on the maximum number of concurrent connections
This is not law that you can challenge, this is a condition of purchase of software and Microsoft as the seller of that software can set whatever conditions they choose. You in turn have the choice to buy their software or not. You're welcome to feel what you like, however if you violate your licence and you get audited you will be fined.
It would be easy for me to develop the website using SQL Express and leave the internal system on 20 userSQL Standard. Someone said this may be me cicumventing the system. I dont think so as we are developing appropriate system as the case may dictate
Again, you are welcome to think what you like, but if you get audited and are found to be in violation of your licence you will be facing a hefty fine.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
March 1, 2012 at 12:18 pm
I get the idea of not wanting to spend anymore $$$ than necessary for licensing. You need to keep in mind that it is Microsoft's definitions of multi-plexing and such that matters, not yours.. As Gila pointed out, the only law in play here is the law of contracts, by using the software you are agreeing to the contract (license), and although I don't like all the terms they aren't egregious. No one is MAKING you use the software you have a choice..
As far as CAL licensing, at some point it is cheaper to simply go the way of processor licensing where you are paying by CPU socket as opposed to core count. You'd have to look at the break even point, but think of this, your cost on a per proc license for a 1x8c is half the $$$ for a 2x4c and you end up with the same # of cores..
If you want to violate the license then thats on you, but very few of us here are going to make any such suggestion. Reading the posts it sounds like you weren't told what you wanted to hear, sorry, but your true argument is with MS and they define the rulebook. Face it, it just isn't worth it to violate the license terms..
CEWII
March 1, 2012 at 12:19 pm
I agree with what Gail has posted. You are trying to develop situations that aren't the same to justify not purchasing CALs or socket licenses.
That being said, I'd welcome you challenging the law. As long as your company/client is willing, it would be interesting to see how courts would interpret the multiplexing rules and their legality.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
March 1, 2012 at 12:22 pm
We have democarcey and rule of Law becuase unfair law is always chalanged. What we are discussing here is to see what is fair and what is not. If it was me who had to chalange this I will do it but it is not me. It is my customer. I have to explain to my customer and it is his choice if he wants to chalange it or not. Just because Microsft Says so it does not make it perfect law.
You are still missing the point. Let me explain with simpler example
I have stock coming in through the gates. 4 or 5 people are booking them in to a system using PC and lets say Microsoft Access. Once a hour my middle tier picks up the data and updates the stock figures after collating the data
This is no differnt from the accountant and 5 staff. So the question here how often it is collated. Lot of customers have such systems and they press a key to update the central system. The 5 accounts staff were preparing the Journal for the month on a access system. The the head of the department updates it. There are systems like this every company up and down the country. All what we are doing it monitoring the access system and updating regularly.
You dont work for Microsoft do you ?
March 1, 2012 at 12:25 pm
It is not me who has to buy the Cals it is my customer
Just like a good lawyer would look after the best interests of his clients we have to do the same. Not their for the profit
March 1, 2012 at 12:37 pm
siva 20997 (3/1/2012)
We have democarcey and rule of Law becuase unfair law is always chalanged. What we are discussing here is to see what is fair and what is not. If it was me who had to chalange this I will do it but it is not me. It is my customer. I have to explain to my customer and it is his choice if he wants to chalange it or not. Just because Microsft Says so it does not make it perfect law.
The law of contracts is one of the most understood and least challengable. You'd have to argue that the terms are extremely out of balance between you and MS, which I don't see happening, or that you entered into the contract under duress, which in this case is effectively not possible. Good luck with that from someone who is not particularly compliant, this angle is a lost cause in my book.
I have stock coming in through the gates. 4 or 5 people are booking them in to a system using PC and lets say Microsoft Access. Once a hour my middle tier picks up the data and updates the stock figures after collating the data
This is no differnt from the accountant and 5 staff. So the question here how often it is collated. Lot of customers have such systems and they press a key to update the central system. The 5 accounts staff were preparing the Journal for the month on a access system. The the head of the department updates it. There are systems like this every company up and down the country. All what we are doing it monitoring the access system and updating regularly.
You dont work for Microsoft do you ?
So you the other people are not working with something that is connected to SQL. I have looked at my copy of the licensing document. Per the wording:
"MULTIPLEXING: USE OF MIDDLEWARE, TRANSACTION SERVERS, AND MULTITIERED ARCHITECTURES
Sometimes organizations develop network scenarios that use various forms of hardware and/or software that reduce the number of devices or users that directly access or use the software on a particular server, often called multiplexing or pooling hardware or software. Use of such multiplexing or pooling hardware and/or software does not reduce the number of CALs required to access or use SQL Server software. A CAL is required for each distinct device or user that is connected to the multiplexing or pooling software or hardware front end.
This is true no matter how many tiers of hardware or software exist between the SQL Server and the client devices that ultimately use its data, services or functionality. An exception to this includes the manual transfer of data from employee to employee. For example, if an employee sends an Excel version of a report to another employee, the receiving employee does not require a CAL (as long as the report does not access a SQL Server in some way). An additional exception is communication exclusively between SQL servers."
I think that the scenario presented would probably only need 1 CAL, to be sure I would make sure the access did not have ANY code that could reach out to SQL and that another process is the only thing that touches SQL. The Access DB in this case provides a distinct separation from SQL and the link is handled by a single user.
With all that said, if you removed the manual intervention the CAL count would jump, that manual intervention makes a BIG deal because without it those other users are interacting with SQL and then Access would be considered middleware.
And no, I don't work for MS, but I have spent a lot of time reviewing the licensing docs to assure compliance, ALWAYS. I don't want my company to get dinged because I was careless.
As a further point, since this is for a customer, you ABSOLUTELY want to be sure on licensing. If you tell them wrong then if they get dinged, you guys are getting sued and you will almost certainly lose.. That scenario is worse in my book than simply within your company.
CEWII
March 1, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Thanks for that. I have no problem with my customers who are using the SQL server with in the company as they would pay the user or device cals. I only brought the Mobile phone argument in because I see that as things to come in the Clock In, Time Sheets, Job Sheets type of applications. we are starting to use iPad as input devices . I will logically break the task down such a way that the devices work very well with the middle tier and then the SQL server pulls gets the data from the middle tier. The stock control system something I am actually working on and we will have the cals as that is affordable and justifiable by the customer
However my other customer has only 10/20 staff contractors all over the world has to interact with them. I have no choice but to develop them as 2 serperate systems and give them the choice to automate the connection or manaully do it.It has to be their choice
I had a similar argument with Royal mail's PAF data providers about 15 years back . There was no point advertising use the Postcode and then charge every user to have a PAF Database year on year. I felt if Royal mail wanted everyone to use the Postcodes so that their job will be made easier they should make the database freeley available to everyone. The cost of producing them should be recovered by a additional cost on the stamps. When AutoRoute came out as a product Microsoft offered them large sum every year for the licence ato be issued freely with AutoRoute and they refused it. The way things are going the post code databse will be freely available on all devices thanks to google or someone that buiness wil be gone.
March 1, 2012 at 2:01 pm
This is my last post only becuase this thought hit me and I am wondering how many have got such situations
Lets Say we have a customer with say 50 User SQL server accounting system like navison based on SQL Server. The customer recives orders from his 3000 customers via electronic means. The 3000 clients do not have any cals. They are small shops. Navision imports them in to itself without manaul intervention and prepares the dispatch notes and invoices etc
Looks like a customer needs a 3050 user licence in such cases. Order started at 3000 locations and it automattically ended up inside the 50 user SQL Server system
I can name a few systems like that. If you look hard enough you will find them
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 44 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply