>>I have a client that has an application at one of their other locations and they use SQL Server on the back end. They seem to be using a single CAL, though they have a number of users (not sure how many at present). They say they "load their application and authenticate to a local table. Once authenticated - the application makes a connection to the SQL Server and opens needed tables."
>>
>>I'm not sure what they are up to, but I don't believe this would be considered a "best practice" or considered legitimate by Microsoft. We're talking about making a move to SQL Server on the back end for an app I developed for them, but they seem to want to approach it from the same angle. I've told them they need a CAL for each active connection. Does anyone think there's a practical, legal way to use one CAL?
>
>SQL CALs are by either user or device, not connection.
>
>I remember a while back, a question coming up where someone proposed building VFP middleware that basically "passed through" requests to SQL Server. The idea being, local apps made requests to the middleware, which queried SQL Server (using a single connection from a single computer/device) and returned the results.
>
>This sort of idea has been banned by Microsoft (at least from a licensing/CAL POV) for some time now - see
http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/e/6/1e68f92c-f334-4517-b610-e4dee946ef91/2008%20SQL%20Licensing%20overview%20final.docx under "Multiplexing". So, in general CAL requirements are fairly strict.
>
>There is at least one area where they may need no specific SQL CALs at all: if they're running SBS. SBS CALs are fairly broad and generous: "SBS CALs now extend to other copies of Windows Server, SQL Server, or Exchange Server on a SBS network - no additional CALs required."
http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/faq.aspxYeah, sorry, I was sloppy with my terminology here. I actually told the user one license for each active user. Using device CALs instead of user CALs is probably going to work out best for them, however. But that's going to cost them in the $7500 neighborhood just for the CALs. Or they could use Postgres for free. <g>
Thanks for your reply.
