Microsoft Volume Licensing Procedures.

[Pete Grazaitis]

I will be sending Microsoft an email with the same questions, but I
was curious to see the net communities response.

Here is a basic summary of licensing as I understand it:

Media OEM license: Software must live and die on that particular
machine.
Media Open License: Software can go on any machine.
Media Open License w/ Software Assurance: Software can go on any
machine and be at any current/past OS level for the time of the
agreement - generally 2 years.

Exchange CAL: Client Access license for Exchange. Per Seat only.
SQL CAL: Client Access license for SQL. Per Seat only.
Windows CAL: Client Access for Authenticated users.
Per Seat: Every workstation using server services needs one
(recommended for
multiple server environment)
Per Server: Enough licenses to cover the number of simultaneous
client
connections.

The kicker is that the Exchange/SQL/Windows CALs are all version
dependent.
Can CALs be purchased with Software Assurance, or is it just the
media?

Scenario A:

Lets say a company has 100 users. The network is made up of 5
servers. At this point its a Windows 2000 native environment. So
Windows based licensing stands at 100 CALs and 5 W2K media licenses.
For the purpose of testing RIS in your environment you need to upgrade
a server to Windows 2003. In doing so the company now has a server at
Windows 2003, and must either buy X amount of Windows 2003 CALs per
server -or- Buy/Upgrade the existing 100 CALs to Windows 2003 CALs.
Is this a correct review of the licensing procedures?

Note: We run into the same problem if a new server with 2003 is
purchased.

Scenario B:

Company purchases 10 laptops for roaming users. Laptops are
preconfigured with OEM Windows XP and Office XP. The administrator
would like to take advantage of Administrative installs for Office XP,
as well as RIS images for the laptops. In order to do this a Volume
license and key are necessary. What is the best course of action
here?

Microsofts position on open licenses seems to be skewed a bit. Open
licensing seems to mean just how it reads. If I have an Open Windows
and Office media license I can purchase replacement machines and put
the software on it. However, it seems that the license is implied as
upgrade only, and there for some valid software needs to be installed
on it. In general this means you pay for the OEM license - and the
Volume license.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/8/9/68964284-864d-4a6d-aed9-f2c1f8f23e14/SeriesDellOffering.doc



There seems to be a wide division between the licensing legality and
the technical aspects to make the software work, as I understand it
anyway. Certain management techniques using recommended Microsoft
procedures require an abundance of licensing. If the Open license is
really an upgrade license than you would have a hierarchy of systems
Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 2000, Windows XP, if you were a long
time supporter of Microsoft. Of course technically speaking you would
have a disaster of a machine.

It seems like Microsoft has worked hard to satisy the ISV and the home
user. Its the business user that seems to be left in the dark. As an
administrator following Microsoft, the goal is to create an
environment where the hardware is basically transparent. If I have a
major screw up with a laptop or workstation, I wipe it, push an image
on, let the network policies rebuild the user's environment. Instead
Im drowning in licensing issues that are now inter-mixed with the
technical side with the advent of XP. Im losing the faith quickly.

[Paul DeGroot]

Pete,

I can't address every issue here because of space and time. Sounds like
you should get a copy of our report on Understanding Microsoft
Licensing, which covers all of this in detail. See
www.directionsonmicrosoft.com.

The details are important, because there are exceptions to virtually
everything to do with Microsoft licensing.

However, I address a few issues inline.

Pete Grazaitis wrote:
I will be sending Microsoft an email with the same questions, but I was curious to see the net communities response. Here is a basic summary of licensing as I understand it: Media OEM license: Software must live and die on that particular machine. Media Open License: Software can go on any machine. Media Open License w/ Software Assurance: Software can go on any machine and be at any current/past OS level for the time of the agreement - generally 2 years. Exchange CAL: Client Access license for Exchange. Per Seat only. SQL CAL: Client Access license for SQL. Per Seat only. Windows CAL: Client Access for Authenticated users. Per Seat: Every workstation using server services needs one (recommended for multiple server environment) Per Server: Enough licenses to cover the number of simultaneous client connections. The kicker is that the Exchange/SQL/Windows CALs are all version dependent. Can CALs be purchased with Software Assurance, or is it just the media? Scenario A: Lets say a company has 100 users. The network is made up of 5 servers. At this point its a Windows 2000 native environment. So Windows based licensing stands at 100 CALs and 5 W2K media licenses. For the purpose of testing RIS in your environment you need to upgrade a server to Windows 2003. In doing so the company now has a server at Windows 2003, and must either buy X amount of Windows 2003 CALs per server -or- Buy/Upgrade the existing 100 CALs to Windows 2003 CALs. Is this a correct review of the licensing procedures?

if you're only testing, limit the number of workstations or set up a
restricted subnet so that not all your machines can see the Win2003
server. That reduces the number of cals you need until you go into
production, at which point you will need to buy/upgrade all the CALs for
any client that accesses the Win2003 server. Note that under a Select
agreement you can test anything for 30 days without purchasing a
license, and you can also install up to 20 copies of anything in a test
lab for educational purposes. Your select agreement would have to cover
the servers pool for you to be able to test per your description here.

Note: you refer to "media licenses," but there's no such thing in volume
licensing. There are licenses and there is media. They are ordered
separately and they're independent of each other, except that you can't
install anything from the media that you don't have a license for. Note: We run into the same problem if a new server with 2003 is purchased. Scenario B: Company purchases 10 laptops for roaming users. Laptops are preconfigured with OEM Windows XP and Office XP. The administrator would like to take advantage of Administrative installs for Office XP, as well as RIS images for the laptops. In order to do this a Volume license and key are necessary. What is the best course of action here?

Get an Open license by purchasing five copies of anything. Include one
Windows XP upgrade and one Office XP (Office 2003?) license in that
purchase. The rest can be something cheap, like Windows 2003 CALs (which
you can use on your Win2000 network.) You can then order Windows XP
media and Office XP media (for about $30 each). Your reseller will get
you the necessary volume license keys for the installs.

You can then use the volume media to re-image OEM software on all the
laptops. (Yes, I believe you can reimage all of them even though you
purchased only one license. Since you're already licensed through the
OEM, you only need the volume media, which do not have activation on
them. (Check MS's licensing briefs for more on re-imaging.)

You many not use the media to install or upgrade the software on any
other machines (e.g. Win2K workstations, Office 2000 installs) without
purchasing the correct licenses, however.
Microsofts position on open licenses seems to be skewed a bit. Open licensing seems to mean just how it reads. If I have an Open Windows and Office media license I can purchase replacement machines and put the software on it. However, it seems that the license is implied as upgrade only, and there for some valid software needs to be installed on it. In general this means you pay for the OEM license - and the Volume license. http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/8/9/68964284-864d-4a6d-aed9-f2c1f8f23e14/SeriesDellOffering.doc There seems to be a wide division between the licensing legality and the technical aspects to make the software work, as I understand it anyway. Certain management techniques using recommended Microsoft procedures require an abundance of licensing. If the Open license is really an upgrade license than you would have a hierarchy of systems Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 2000, Windows XP, if you were a long time supporter of Microsoft. Of course technically speaking you would have a disaster of a machine. It seems like Microsoft has worked hard to satisy the ISV and the home user. Its the business user that seems to be left in the dark. As an administrator following Microsoft, the goal is to create an environment where the hardware is basically transparent. If I have a major screw up with a laptop or workstation, I wipe it, push an image on, let the network policies rebuild the user's environment. Instead Im drowning in licensing issues that are now inter-mixed with the technical side with the advent of XP. Im losing the faith quickly.


That you have any faith at all means you don't know enough about
Microsoft volume licensing <g>.

Paul DeGroot
Licensing Analyst
Directions on Microsoft
www.directionsonmicrosoft.com