A Justification for Server CALs?

Posted by Cliff on Friday December 16, 2005 @07:26AM from the buy-software-with-licensing-you-can-cope-with dept.

bourne.again asks: "I'm a bit confused about server client access licenses (CALs). I've looked at it from every angle I can think of, but I'm still stumped. I can't think of any justification for CALs other than greed. If you think about it, requiring CALs means that it is possible to buy a copy of a Windows server OS that can run on a server, but can't actually server anything because it has no CALs. That's a bit ridiculous. The same goes for per-cpu licenses. Shouldn't it just be per machine? An extra CPU doesn't allow you the full capabilities of a second machine. It's still just one server/workstation. Can somebody enlighten me on this, please? Why should we pay for server software, and pay per client too?"

2 of 74 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Let me get this straight... by linuxwrangler · 2005-12-16 08:00 · Score: 2, Funny

...you're asking a bunch of Open Source fanatics for a justification for client access licenses? Good luck.

--

~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
Re:Attempt to be fair; pay proportional to usage by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-16 09:05 · Score: 1, Funny

CALs are a tool.
My name is Cal, you insensitive clod!