Slashdot Mirror
A Justification for Server CALs?
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?"
You pay for it this way because that is how the vendors choose to sell it. You can purhcase other software if this does not suit you.... Why do you pay several thousand dollars for a car, because that is the price. Want something cheaper, buy another model.
I reject your reality
Client CALs are an attempt to balance between extremes of licensing. At one end you have Oracle and the infamous "processing units" where every 100 MHz of chip speed present was billable (no matter if it was due to a single fast chip or multiple slow chips). At the other is a license per machine which can be abused by having a high end multi processor machines.
Microsoft (since you use the term CAL) has given most products the option of either being per processor (a decent compromise in "bang for your buck" at the high end) or per server with CALs (a decent compromise at the low end, while scaling the revenue with usage). Frankly, I don't find it odd at all, unless you want to contrast it with free software.
Sig under construction since 1998.
You don't get to dictate their licensing terms any more than they can force you to purchace something. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Of course, the argument could be made that since Microsoft is a convicted monopoly you don't really have a choice, but enforcing anti-trust law is part of captialism too.
A more sensible licensing scheme might take into account actual computing power, networking capacity, etc. Of course, the pricing of replicatable goods is completely arbitrary. It has nothing to do with economics that deals with the distribution of scarce resources.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Why does Server 2003 cost me per server, instead of per media? The theory is that after spending years of programmers salaries without compensation, they have to make back the money they already spent just with licensing fees. It's an art, deciding how to price things so that both the little businesses can afford it and still recoup your costs.
Server CALs are just another tool in balancing software costs proportional to the usage (customer perceived value) and ability to pay.
It may be partly greed, but remember that most companies have to use their successes to recoup the costs of software that DIDN'T sell. Remember Infocom? Looking Glass Studios? Pricing is an art. CALs are a tool.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
...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
One other thing that I've noticed is that the more specialized the software, the fewer copies that are sold. This software usually turns out to be more expensive and far more restrictive than more popular software. For example, at work I use a streaming video package that we spent $10k for. When you install it, you enter a license number, it contacts the company's server over the net and then activates the software. I have two problems with this.
Anyway, events like this make me really appreciate the "freedom" aspect of free software and open source software. I have little time to dick around with playing games like that with vendors. Not to mention that it leaves you completely at the mercy of the vendor.
So my point in all this is that eventually companies will learn that it's in their interest to start using software that respects flexibility rather than being node-locked, not allowing reinstalls, charging for extra CPUs & network connections, etc. But it won't make a difference until it starts affecting the bottom line of these companies.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
...it is in the standard license agreement does not mean you have to accept it. These are not EULAs for off-the-[NAME OF FAVORITE RETAILER HERE]-shelf shrinkwrapped software. You'll be surprised at how much you can negotiate - especially at the end of a business quarter (the seller's - not the buyer's).
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
I see people have already given you the "because people accept it" economic answer. However, there is some logic to server CALs. It goes as follows:
The value you get from software is proportional to the number of your people using it.
In the case of software that runs on the client machine, if you have N users you are generally expected to pay for N licenses, so that the amount you pay is proportional to the value you get.
If I have a server-based web content management system, and have 10 people using it, I'm getting twice as much value from it as if I only had 5 people using it--just like if it was a client-based web editing system. Basically, whether the software resides on the server or the client is a mere technical detail that doesn't really affect the value obtained, and so shouldn't affect the pricing too much.
So CALs are a way to make server software pricing more like client software pricing--i.e. proportional to value obtained.
The bit you should be asking about isn't the CAL; it's the initial server software price. The logical reason for an initial per-server fee is to cover the expected distribution and support costs when you purchase the software and try to set up the server. Unfortunately, that lump sum basically makes it disproportionately expensive to set up a server for a small number of users. That's why there has been a trend towards offering cut-down SMB versions of server software with a lower up-front cost.
Per-CPU and per-MHz licensing is an attempt to shift the expense towards those who can apparently best afford it. Or to look at it from the other side, it's another way to try and make things relatively cheaper for entry-level/low end customers. Like income tax, in other words.
One thing you didn't bring up is the difference between workstation CALs and (concurrent) user CALs. Personally, I think workstation CALs are a bit of a rip-off, and licensing should always be based on users, whether the software is server-based or client-based. If I use 5 computers in various locations, I'm not getting 5x the value of a server-based CMS--there's only one of me, and the fact that I use 5 machines instead of carrying 1 laptop everywhere should (again) be a mere detail that doesn't affect the value obtained, and so shouldn't affect the price.
Disclaimer: Opinions mine, not IBMs.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
If they charged a flat price, they'd need to charge a lot more to make the same amount of revenue. So somebody using it with 5 clients would pay $10,000 as would the person using it with 500 clients.
Does that seem like a better system to you? Well, probably if you're the guy using the 500 clients.
An important point to note about Microsoft Server CAL's, as long as each user (or device) has a CAL, you can add as many servers as you want (for the base cost of a server). So if you have one server and 20 CAL's, and you need to purchase a second server, you only need to pay the ~$600 for the Server software, all the clients are covered by CAL's already.
Because it's their product, and they can charge whatever the hell they want?
Anyway, it's not a bad setup - that way the large companies that use it for thousands of clients get to foot a lot more of the R&D and support costs than the small companies using it for 10 clients. I don't really see the problem here.