I've read the licensing document that describes per-user and per-device CALs
in TS2003. These remind me of the old per-server and per-seat client
licenses introduced in NT 3.5.

The trouble I can see is, I expect no more than five users to connect to a
TS at a time. Per-device mode issues a license to a device (computer) that
expires after X days, but that suggests that this license can't be reclaimed
during this period - if I have five people connected (and I restrict the
number of inbound connections to five) and I'm using per-device TSCALs, all
of these are used up even if one person disconnects to make room for another
person.

Or have I misinterpreted that?

Per-user licensing is even sillier - if I have ten users but five per-user
TSCALs, then those things get issued to users with no way to reclaim a
license for another user - not even an expiry date. Sure, it doesn't bother
decreasing the license count so I can have ten users share five per-user
TSCALs. It might not be legal, but if I'm restricting the number of inbound
connections already, there's no way to have more than five people on at the
same time anyway.

So, for this scenario, which is the best licensing model? I'm already
enforcing the licensed usage by restricting the number of inbound
connections.

This reminds me of a bug in the old license logging service for NT 3.5 and
Remote Access Service. In per-server mode, non-Windows clients
disconnecting wouldn't decrement the per-server usage count, eventually
running out of licenses. The workaround was to change it to per-seat and
ignore the license service event log entries. Eventually MS began
recommending stopping and disabling the license logging service.

--
PGP key (0x0AFA039E): <http://www.pan-am.ca/consulting@pan-am.ca.asc>
What's a PGP Key? See <http://www.pan-am.ca/free.html>
GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET. <http://vmyths.com/rant.cfm?id=401&page=4>

Re: Enforcing TS licensing? Ten users vs five TS CALs? by Lanwench

Lanwench
Sun Jan 02 18:10:25 CST 2005

Gordon Fecyk wrote:
> I've read the licensing document that describes per-user and
> per-device CALs in TS2003. These remind me of the old per-server and
> per-seat client licenses introduced in NT 3.5.
>
> The trouble I can see is, I expect no more than five users to connect
> to a TS at a time. Per-device mode issues a license to a device
> (computer) that expires after X days, but that suggests that this
> license can't be reclaimed during this period - if I have five people
> connected (and I restrict the number of inbound connections to five)
> and I'm using per-device TSCALs, all of these are used up even if one
> person disconnects to make room for another person.
>
> Or have I misinterpreted that?
>
> Per-user licensing is even sillier - if I have ten users but five
> per-user TSCALs, then those things get issued to users with no way to
> reclaim a license for another user - not even an expiry date. Sure,
> it doesn't bother decreasing the license count so I can have ten
> users share five per-user TSCALs. It might not be legal, but if I'm
> restricting the number of inbound connections already, there's no way
> to have more than five people on at the same time anyway.
>
> So, for this scenario, which is the best licensing model? I'm already
> enforcing the licensed usage by restricting the number of inbound
> connections.
>
> This reminds me of a bug in the old license logging service for NT
> 3.5 and Remote Access Service. In per-server mode, non-Windows
> clients disconnecting wouldn't decrement the per-server usage count,
> eventually running out of licenses. The workaround was to change it
> to per-seat and ignore the license service event log entries.
> Eventually MS began recommending stopping and disabling the license
> logging service.

Hi - wrong newsgroup? I also noticed you have posted this identical message
to another group (a far more relevant one) and have many replies. If this
post wasn't an error, please don't multipost - if you need to post to
multiple groups, it's best to crosspost instead, by posting a single message
to a handful of relevant groups (separate the NG names with commas) so that
everyone can follow the thread. This makes it easier for everyone, including
you.