Pertino Questions
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
If that is connecting to your AD DNS then you'd need CALs for these home premium devices.
DNS does require a license, I am pretty sure, because you are using it as a non-public service. BUT if you are using it for users that already have CALs, that they are on devices that are not on AD doesn't matter, the user would already have a CAL. But if you are using device CALs, yes, I think that you get caught here.
One of the many caveats of using Windows when something else would do just as well, generally there is a licensing penalty to be had. Windows as a public web server, no CALs. Windows as an Intranet web server - needs CALs. The CALs are not connected to AD but to the use of the Windows platform.
-
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
If that is connecting to your AD DNS then you'd need CALs for these home premium devices.
Really? just for DNS?
So all those companies that do BOYD and allow employee cell phones on the network and are using their AD for DNS need a CAL just for DNS access?
Of course, if they are using Windows. Why would that be an exception to the licensing requirements?
Using the term AD here is extremely misleading. AD is not involved in any way.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Hubtech said:
this is why I hate posting here. who said anything about CALs @thecreativeone91 ?????
It's a valid point. But I do agree that people on here tend to be a bit of sticklers for the EXACT terms of a license agreement.
It's not really being a stickler if it's a company you follow the terms. No if, ands or buts about it.
It's been this way for a long time. This is why people don't use Windows DNS for non domain guest networks. Though you can share records. Zone Transfers would allow you to Put the records on a Linux DNS server and then access them with only the linux server needing a CAL. Just like you can copy files off a file server and then access the files without a CAL so can you with DNS records, there is no data lock in.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
If that is connecting to your AD DNS then you'd need CALs for these home premium devices.
Really? just for DNS?
So all those companies that do BOYD and allow employee cell phones on the network and are using their AD for DNS need a CAL just for DNS access?
Yeah, I agree with @Dashrender. You're not joining them to the domain, so I don't see how you'd need CALs for this. Using just DNS, you don't get any GPO features, or the like that comes with it being actually joined the domain, which we both know isn't even possible for the home edition without hacking the OS.
What does a domain have to do with the CAL requirement? Where did that come from? CALs are not AD related.
-
@Dashrender said:
@thanksajdotcom actually you don't have join AD to require a CAL, just use resources, I thought it was specific resources like file/print services/authentication, etc... would never have figured DNS required CALs though or DHCP (Does DHCP require a CAL too?)
Even if you run Apache and BIND on Windows, you are hit by the CAL requirement. It's a requirement of Windows, not the services running on top of it. DNS, AD, DHCP, IIS... those are all free once you have Windows properly licensed underneath of them.
And yes, this applies to things like Spiceworks too.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
According to Microsoft, any feature of the server, whether DNS/DHCP you need a CAL.
Most organisations get around that with user cals rather than device cals.
Just because everyone is doing it, does not mean they can keep doing it
That's why these audits are so profitable for Microsoft.OK would a User CAL cover an employee who is covered by a User CAL at the office for their home computer?
If you are using User CALs, the device is not a factor.
-
@Dashrender said:
Well - there we have it.. if you use DHCP for guests you need CALs - damn what a racquet.
Not really. You could use any number of free options for this but presumably feel that Windows is so valuable that it is worth paying for a CAL to use it for anything and everything. If the cost of CALs is too much, you can use Linux, BSD, your firewall, etc. for free. Microsoft's whole deal with Windows is that it is, in theory, nice and easy making it worthwhile to pay a premium to use it. If it isn't worth that premium, don't deploy it (premium includes server cost, CAL cost and licensing management overhead.)
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
My question is how would Microsoft track this? I mean, you have someone come in and grab an IP once, you are saying you technically have to purchase an additional CAL for them? That seems extreme.
Not extreme at all, if you think about it logically. You needed the premium Windows platform for some reason, you should pay for it. It's that simple. Why are you using Windows for this if it doesn't provide some value to you?
How they track it is irrelevant. The requirement is for YOU to track it.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
I mean, assuming you have a reasonable DHCP lease time, of say 24 hours, once their lease is up, if they haven't grabbed it again, they're gone for good. This is one of those things that Microsoft may say that technically additional CALs would be required, but for this kind of situation I doubt it is ever really enforced.
Depends. If in an audit they find people doing this and no system for tracking and maintaining CALs you can bet that they will enforce it. It's pretty trivial to catch people doing this.
-
@Dashrender said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Dashrender said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Have a read of this.
Q2 - If I have guests that come into my office an temporarily use a Windows DHCP server to grab an IP address to access the Internet, do they need CALs? I guess the takeaway is to never use a Windows DHCP server?
A2 - Yes, they are using a Windows Server service and would need a CAL.
Well - there we have it.. if you use DHCP for guests you need CALs - damn what a racquet.
My question is how would Microsoft track this? I mean, you have someone come in and grab an IP once, you are saying you technically have to purchase an additional CAL for them? That seems extreme.
Yes, the Blog specifically says if you have a guest get a DHCP address for nothing more than surfing the web, you still need a CAL.
CALs are re assignable after 90 days I think, but still, this is absurd! I guess I need to purchase about 20 more CALs just so we have a rotating pool of CALs for reps who come onsite. Either that or stand up some other box, create a completely separate network, etc, etc for the reps to use.
No need for a separate network. Just have DHCP handled by a different platform.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Dashrender said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Dashrender said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Have a read of this.
Q2 - If I have guests that come into my office an temporarily use a Windows DHCP server to grab an IP address to access the Internet, do they need CALs? I guess the takeaway is to never use a Windows DHCP server?
A2 - Yes, they are using a Windows Server service and would need a CAL.
Well - there we have it.. if you use DHCP for guests you need CALs - damn what a racquet.
My question is how would Microsoft track this? I mean, you have someone come in and grab an IP once, you are saying you technically have to purchase an additional CAL for them? That seems extreme.
I mean, assuming you have a reasonable DHCP lease time, of say 24 hours, once their lease is up, if they haven't grabbed it again, they're gone for good. This is one of those things that Microsoft may say that technically additional CALs would be required, but for this kind of situation I doubt it is ever really enforced.
CALs have always been on the honor system, doesn't mean if you get audited you won't have a lot 'splaining to do Lucy!
Yeah, but they'd have to do some serious digging to find out that you had some sales rep show up one time eight months ago for a few hours and get a DHCP lease and use the DNS of the network.
Why does every question of cost and requirements come down to you wondering how easily you can get away without paying? We are in IT, it's not our job to question the cost, steal the services, etc. We present the costs and let others determine if the cost is worth the decision. Once you are trying to determine how to not pay not only have you left the ethical position behind but you are outside of the IT scope and acting as the business stealing from another business. That's neither ethical NOR an IT action. Why does someone in IT care how much it costs? We just need to determine and implement what is best for the business. The cost is simply a constraint.
-
@Hubtech said:
this is why I hate posting here. who said anything about CALs @thecreativeone91 ?????
But as you can see, it is a super underestimated factor that a lot of people were not thinking about.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
Yeah, I guess this is why you spin up a guest network on your router and have it use the router as the DHCP server and DNS via Google/L3/OpenDNS servers.
Or BIND or other DNS service locally. There are lots of benefits to doing non-Windows services whenever they are available to you.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Hubtech said:
this is why I hate posting here. who said anything about CALs @thecreativeone91 ?????
It's a valid point. But I do agree that people on here tend to be a bit of sticklers for the EXACT terms of a license agreement.
That's one of the core functions of working in IT. Especially people working in the Windows world. Doing our core job isn't exactly being "sticklers." That's like saying not allowing your kids to steal candybars from the grocery store is like being "sticklers for shoplifting."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Hubtech said:
this is why I hate posting here. who said anything about CALs @thecreativeone91 ?????
It's a valid point. But I do agree that people on here tend to be a bit of sticklers for the EXACT terms of a license agreement.
That's one of the core functions of working in IT. Especially people working in the Windows world. Doing our core job isn't exactly being "sticklers." That's like saying not allowing your kids to steal candybars from the grocery store is like being "sticklers for shoplifting."
I agree that in a perfect world the IT and the business/financial portions are completely separate. However, the reality for many people is that this is not the case.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
I agree that in a perfect world the IT and the business/financial portions are completely separate. However, the reality for many people is that this is not the case.
Not really. A lot of IT people take on this personal feeling that they have to find ways to make things cheaper than they can be, but that's not something that they are ever obligated to do. The law is very clear that needing to help someone steal is never part of your job, ever. No matter what your job description or mandate is. You can never be asked to or required to do this.
Unless the IT person is the owner of the company, they don't have the financial ties to not spend money. Many (most maybe) imagine that they do, but this is a quirk of people who work in IT. If Windows seems outrageously expensive you should be comparing against other options and considering alternatives, if you jump to "how can I not get caught if I don't pay for this", you have crossed a line and are not acting as an IT person and are taking on a responsibility you in no way have.
-
No matter what the case is, AJ, the feeling that you need to, should or just "can get away with" circumventing your contractual, ethical or legal requirements is absolutely not part of working in IT any more than stealing car parts to lower the cost of repairs is the job of an auto mechanic.
-
I think the thread doubled in size since scott's arrival.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
I think the thread doubled in size since scott's arrival.
Welcome to the norm of posting on the same community at @scottalanmiller ...lol
-
@scottalanmiller said:
No matter what the case is, AJ, the feeling that you need to, should or just "can get away with" circumventing your contractual, ethical or legal requirements is absolutely not part of working in IT any more than stealing car parts to lower the cost of repairs is the job of an auto mechanic.
Fair enough. Your point is valid.
