Guy, thanks for the clarification!
>I was thinking more about this after I posted that message yesterday. Somehow that got planted in my head long ago. As I thought more about it, I think that notion came from the security context that MTDLLs run in.
>
>If I could summarize MS licensing requirements on the servers over the past few releases, I'd say you need CALs as outlined below:
>
> - NT Server 4.0 - File & print services.
> - Windows 2000 Server - File, Print & Authenticated services.
> - Windows Server 2003 - File, Print & Authenticated services.
>
>I've always understaood that anonymous access does not require CALs.
>
>On those last two, I think authentication pertains to Windows accounts alone. As I understand it, I can put up a Server and use a third party product such as an FTP server, or a WC app, or an ActiveVFP app, etc; and even though the third party app may have it's own user database and login mechanism, I still am not using the Windows O/S to authenticate anyone. i.e., As long as no user accounts from a Windows Domain or a stand-alone server are used for authentication of a connecting end-user, then I am not obligated to Windows CALs.
>
>So back to the MTDLL. I had carelessly assumed that since you have to use MTDLLs as part of COM+ then you're in some user security context, and then you're going to need CALs. But on second thought, this would be architected like any other web app. A single user account, or even a built-in account could support the app. And, as long as the app is not, in turn, relying on Windows user accounts for each user then this licensing issue probably goes out the window.
>
>Guy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Guy, thanks for your input. I would be very surprised if this is true. It would be nice to hear from MS on this...
>>>>>
>>>... Also, why did MS choose vfp mtdlls and not .EXEs as the basis for vfp web services and make it the standard for VFP web development??
>>><<
>>>
>>>
>>>I may be off base here but I think I read long ago that MTDLLs are part of (or run within) COM+ services. And usage of COM+ carries [CAL] licensing implications in an environment that otherwise might be anonymous uasge. So, aside from any technical argument, on Windows Server 2000 and higher, I think the implementation of one or more MTDLLs automatically introduces requirement for Windows CALs. Whereas, I could run a web server with many apps (WC .EXEs) and never worry about CAL issues.
>>>
>>>Guy