0

I found this:

Q. I want to have additional servers running Windows Server 2008 or Windows Server 2008 R2 in my SBS 2011 Standard domain. Do I need additional CALs to access those servers? A. No. As long as those servers are within the Windows Small Business Server 2011 Standard domain, your Windows Small Business Server 2011 CAL Suites grant you access rights to the other Windows Servers. Note however, the use of some functionality in Windows Server require additional licenses (e.g., Remote Desktop Services/Rights Management Services).

Here. I'm looking to find out if the CAL would also cover a Server 2012 or Server 2012 R2 member server of the SBS domain as well. Has anyone found anything from Microsoft one way or the other?

Andy
  • 573
  • 3
  • 7
  • 25

1 Answers1

2

First, in regard to the CALs, SBS 2011 CALs no longer work for Server 2012 & R2, so you'd need to purchase CALs for them if you plan to go with 2012. The SBS 2011 CALs work for 2008 & R2 as you already found out, but the licensing model changed for 2012 and MS now requires CALs for any member server running it. This is the link for reference.

Now, as far as other features (like RDS services you referenced in your question, and other features too) you will need separate CALs for those. See my quote directly from the 2012 license page FAQ.

Q: Do I still need a separate CAL to access Remote Desktop Services (RDS) and Active Directory Rights Management Service (ADRMS)? A: Yes. The licensing requirements for Remote Desktop Services (RDS) and Active Directory Rights Management Service (ADRMS) have not changed with Windows Server 2012 R2. Customers are still required to purchase an ADRMS and/or RDS CAL in addition to a Windows Server CAL to access ADRMS and/or RDS functionality respectively. For example, to access RDS functionality in Windows Server 2012 R2, you need Windows Server 2012 CALs and Windows Server 2012 RDS CALs along with the server software.

Let me know if you need further info.

Brad Bouchard
  • 2,507
  • 2
  • 12
  • 22
  • We as a community decided long ago that software licensing questions are not topical here http://serverfault.com/questions/215405/can-you-help-me-with-my-software-licensing-issue – user9517 May 24 '14 at 22:59
  • 2
    I've seen many questions like this recently that didn't get closed. He isn't asking for an overall comprehensive answer to help him license his entire network, he is simply asking for a few specifics regarding certain features. It would be very petty to close this question for the link you've referenced. We're here to help people not nit pick at them for the questions they ask. – Brad Bouchard May 25 '14 at 00:07
  • This is exactly the sort of thing we _do not_ want to attempt to answer, for a variety of reasons. Mainly that it's so difficult to get right without the specialized help that no one here is qualified to provide. – Michael Hampton May 25 '14 at 00:34
  • 2
    There's nothing special about it, see my reference links if you doubt that. They are both very easily answerable questions that I can also back up with my Microsoft rep as the company I work for is an MS Gold Partner, thus giving me access to be able to help people with questions like this. It's not like he came in and said help me license my entire infrastructure. – Brad Bouchard May 25 '14 at 01:14
  • @bradbouchard we aren't trying to be pety...its more that licensing is a legal thing and giving out legal advice over the internet is generally a Bad Idea. – Grant May 25 '14 at 01:17
  • @Grant again, if he asked for us to give him a comprehensive list of all CALs or licenses he needed it would be different... As far as your bit about the legal advice, that's covered in the Stack Exchange TOS. People accept that info we give on here is not legally binding, nor is it held to be. Say what you will, but you won't convince me otherwise. – Brad Bouchard May 25 '14 at 01:20
  • @MichaelHampton I'd also ask how you know that no SF user is qualified to answer licensing questions as you put it. Are you saying that you know for sure that there are no users here who also happen to be license specialists? – Brad Bouchard May 25 '14 at 01:27
  • And by the way, I'm not disagreeing with my fellow professionals that licensing is often a complex matter that the OP should contact his reps for, I'm simply saying why not help him get on the right path. I'm assuming a level of responsibility that the author should have, meaning it should be common sense that he verifies the info given to him by us on here; you will all learn the more I am around SF though that I hate turning anyone away for help, it's just not in my nature. If that puts me at odds with some SF policies, then so be it, but I'm not changing the way I help people. – Brad Bouchard May 25 '14 at 01:34
  • You assume far too much responsibility and common sense on the part OPs, some have been known to copy/paste incorrect code and destroy their systems (before the community had time to react). We decided that we do not want SF to become known for answering licensing questions and created the canonical Q&A I linked to as the way to put people on the right road. This is entirely for the OPs protection, if they have an audit trail that is a Q&A on the internet then they have no recourse. _Please work with the community not against it on this_ – user9517 May 25 '14 at 06:18
  • 1
    @Iain Quite frankly the policy needs to be reconsidered. If my question were about adding a 2008 member server, the link I gave in my question is both clear and authoritative. And I disagree that the community should not assume OPs assume responsibility for use and verification of answers here. That some OPs have not done so does not negate their responsibility the same way that some drivers acting irresponsibly does nit negate other drivers from needing to act responsibly. – Andy May 25 '14 at 15:13
  • @BradBouchard The link leads to a PDF which I've found too. Is it safe to assume that since the PDF only mention CALs working for 2012 servers in the context of SA, that if one doesn't have SA then new CALs are required? – Andy May 25 '14 at 15:17
  • @Andy I couldn't agree with you more. As far as the Software Assurance, that is where I would defer to Microsoft, but what I've always known to be true in the past is that if you had SA you were ok to run older versions of the OS with the CALs purchased for the newest versions while at the same time having the ability to move to the next version seamlessly. Good question by the way. – Brad Bouchard May 25 '14 at 22:46
  • 1
    @BradBouchard Thanks, its too bad they didn't clarify this like they did the 2008 question. I'll follow up with MS to be sure. – Andy May 26 '14 at 12:46
  • Any time my friend. – Brad Bouchard May 26 '14 at 23:12