The verbage on the web site is not clear. It states,

"An authenticated user is one who directly or indirectly uses the Windows 2000 Server Integrated Sign-on Service or receives credentials from the Windows 2000 Active Directory® service."

What is not clear is what does it mean when it says "indirectly". I'm trying to get an answer to this from Microsoft.

There is also an issue of timing...licensing requirements change from time to time.


>Hi Craig,
>
>Licensing is becoming a quagmire of confusion. It's on its way to quickly becoming as confusing as the IRS code.
>
>Here's what I understand.
>
>If you are using a Windows Server soley to run a server-based application like SQL Server or Exchange Server (and you are not prividing file, print, or authentication services), then you only need the proper licensing for the back-end application.
>
>I've had Microsofties explain to me that if I put up a W2K Server box with just SQL Server on it, then I have to have valid SQL Svr CALs (either user CALs or the per processor license). I don't need to also purchase W2K Server CALs. Not unless I've chosen mixed-mode authentication and I'm having user accounts on this same box as the authentication of my SQL logins. (Which is something I never do. Not only for license reasons but also due to security flaws with SQL connection handling on mixed-mode authentication.)
>
>Or put simply, I only need W2K Svr CALs when the server is authenticating me, or acting as a file or print server.
>
>Nothing on the page you referenced led me to believe that I also need W2K CALs on a SQL Server box. What are you seeing that I missed?
>
>Guy
>
>
>