Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 Licensing Changes - CALs Also!

(Updated 5/18/10 based on info from Microsoft)

I heard an ugly rumor yesterday about Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 from Gaby Amar at Softmart saying that in order to use SQL Server 2008 R2 in a server/CAL model you will have to have 2008 R2 CALs as well (typically for R2 releases you don't need an updated CAL). Well...checked it out with Microsoft licensing and he was absolutely correct (I should have known better than to be surprised, LOL)!

Basically, Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 is a major release (think in terms of a release such as Microsoft SQL Server 2000 to Microsoft SQL Server 2005) so don't let the lack of year change in the naming convention fool you.

Customers who have active Microsoft Software Assurance on their exisiting SQL Server products will have the new release rights, but those that don't will need to purchase new licenses in order to run the software (for those who run in Server/CAL mode this means both new server licenses and new CAL licenses).

CAL Requirements

1. If you have Microsoft Software Assurance currently in effect on your SQL Server CALs, then you are entitled to SQL Server 2008 R2 CALs
2. If you do not have Software Assurance, you must have SQL Server 2008 R2 CALs to run SQL Server 2008 R2 using the Server/CAL software licensing model (in other words...don't try to run with your older SQL Server 2008 CALs).

You may be wondering why I'm making such a big deal about this...after all it is a new release, of course new licenses are required. My point is this: it is a departure from how Microsoft has licensed Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 where the Windows Server 2008 CAL can still be used on the newer version Windows Server 2008 R2.

Additionally, there are changes to the processor licensing for SQL Server 2008 R2. You might want to check out some of these resources for more information on this and other SQL Server 2008 R2 changes.

Microsoft has provided the following links for further information on licensing:

• The SQL licensing quick reference guide: http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/licensing.aspx
• Direct link to the guide: http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/7/0/270B6380-8B38-4268-8AD0-F480A139AB19/SQL2008R2_LicensingQuickReference-updated.pdf
• Overall SQL Server 2008 Licensing FAQ: http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/licensing-faq.aspx
• Microsoft SQL Site: http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/
• Product Use Rights has info on the following products: R2 CALs (OCS, System Center Configuration Manager, System Center Operations Manager, System Center Virtual Machine Manager) http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/product-licensing.aspx

For more information on virtualization and SQL Server 2008 R2 check out Andrew Fryer's blog.

If you have any questions - let me know! This is a huge change in Microsoft's licensing trend.

Software Licensing - Gaming the System

It seems in a number of my recent conversations with a major software publisher (who has one of the most complex licensing structures going)...that they keep referencing companies that "Game the System" and what a wrong thing that is to do.

Question - when they make the rules, can you really ever "Game the System"? Don't get me wrong, we specialize in helping customers get creative with how to reduce their licensing costs for their software...but if it's allowed within their convoluted licensing terms, how can you be doing anything wrong?

Take the IRS for example (since it's April 15th), their rules are complex (far more complex than any software publisher) but they expect you to take advantage of every credit that you are entitled to through their rules. They don't call foul and say you're "Gaming the System" when you take advantage of rules that work in your favor. Why should a software publisher?

LOL - yes, I did just compare this software publisher to the IRS...LOL!

Frankly, the ones who write the rules hold the cards - if you can work within those rules and minimize your costs, who are they to complain? If they don't like it, they can change their rules.

What do you think...is it possible to "Game the System" in a negative way?

Resellers and Publishers in the world of Software License Management

I woke up this morning to a great Twitter from a good friend and great coach Jak Plihal (http://www.beingsolutions.com/). It was the quote:

"It is hard to get a man to understand something, if his living depends on him not understanding it." by Upton Sinclair.

To me, this perfectly explains the relationship between resellers (VARs, LARs, and any other acronym that is responsible for selling you software), software publishers and the details of software licensing.

There are details in software licensing agreements and product use rights that can be turned to a benefit for a company in legally reducing their software licensing costs...but you're not going to find them all out by asking your reseller or publisher for help.

Why? Not because they are necessarily trying to mislead you or keep you in ignorance - instead it's because they honestly don't even think of those options...because their living (or magnitude of it) depends on them not thinking of those options.

Now, there are definitely some that are better than others (I love working with Softmart for example as their reps have demonstrated to me a strong ability to keep the customer's needs in focus) but as long as their income relies upon what you buy then Upton Sinclair's quote will continue to apply.

When it comes to negotiating the best deal for licensing - the bulk of the savings opportunities comes from making full use of the product use rights and volume licensing agreements terms - not from the discount you negotiate (or not from the discount you negotiate without knowing these items intimately). Get your advice and education from an independent expert...know in advance who profits from your purchase and what their motivation is so you can better analyze their advice.

Remember, "It is hard to get a man to understand something, if his living depends on him not understanding it." Upton Sinclair.

Thanks Jak!