On Friday 30 January 2004 22:44, Richard Potter wrote: > Totally Off Topic... but I'm sure some Sys Admins on this list have > been through this. > > In a total Linux server shop (samba, sendmail, etc), has anyone > ever purchased MS Exchange server and let's say 50 CAL licence, > just so the Windows users could have legal copies of Outlook? > Exchange would never be installed, we just want legal Outlook > licences. > > I know that I could call MS$ and ask them, but I want a real world > answer, as compared to a canned response from a MS$ droan. > > All the (l)users we have, demand Windows, (We use several > proprietary Windows only software packages) and are wanting Outlook > for it's PIM stuff, mostly Contacts & Calendar. So... I had this > though this afternoon about buying 50 cal Exchange. It *appears* to > be less expensive than buying Outlook licences direct. > > Any thoughts/comments on this? > As far as I know each Outlook client located on a desktop, for instance, must be licensed whether or not it connects to an Exchange Server. Therefore you would have two licenses for each desktop, one for any MS operating system and one for Outlook. An Exchange Client Access License would only be required if you are connecting directly to the Exchange software. It seems to me that it would be completely unrelated as far as connecting to a linux mail server. (Note: a client access license wouldn't be necessary if the Outlook user connected to the Exchange Server via the OWA (Http) interface) An exchange server would have two licenses; one for the operating system and one for exchange. I went thought this with NT4 but with Exchange Server 2003 comes a new licensing model. Here's a FAQ for your perusal: http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/howtobuy/LicensingFAQ.asp Regards, Mike Klinke -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
