Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Justification for Server CALs?

Posted by Cliff on 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?"

3 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. A balance... by Godeke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  2. That's Capitalism by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Uh by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.