Re: WHAT! 100% price increase for per user!

You're right. When SQL Server 2000 came out Microsoft dropped the concurrent user licensing provision!

On the MS website I found a page that descibed the licensing terms for SQL Server 7 and concurrent users are still allowed. But for the 2000 version it's definately gone. I just assumed that the licensing terms that applied for version 7 would apply when I upgraded. Silly me.

This doesn't affect me directly since I've upgraded to the singleprocessor  license. But it's good to know. Keeps me from showing my ignorance in the newsgroups if nothing else.

As for IBM I can't find any info on their website that defines client access licensing terms. I guess I'll go ask on the db2 newsgroup and then report back here.

In article <B7555E64.161BB%markbtownsend_at_home.com>, markbtownsend_at_home.com says...

> When I read this, this doesn't sound like concurrent user licencing at all.
> In fact, it sounds exactly like named user licencing. As far as I can see,
> each user that connects would need their own CAL (unless they are all
> sharing the same PC to connect ?). This is supported by the statment that
> CALs are optimal for 25 or less users - the implication is that for more
> than 25 users, CPU licencing is cheaper. Is there something somewhere on the
> MS website that explains the concurrency aspects/restrictions around CALs
> further ?
Received on Wed Jun 20 2001 - 10:21:41 CDT