Does Azure Marketplace images include with Active Software Assurance or not? For an example, in Azure marketplace "SQL Server 2019 on Windows Server 2019" image comes with Software Assurance or not?
The Software Assurance varies product to product. Many products includes Software Assurance with the product while others have optional purchase.
I suggest you to go through the official Microsoft Software Assurance. Go through the links/PDFs under Getting Software Assurance and Learn more about Software Assurance sections.
Also, the same question has been asked and answered on Microsoft Q&A. Please see here.
Related
At the risk of this question being closed, I'm going to ask it anyway since I'm quite lost, and I really need to make a decision.
I'm inclined for OpenLink Virtuoso at the moment since it's open source.
However, does Virtuoso Universal Server (commercial) have more features compared to OpenLink Virtuoso (open source) or are they [very] similar? Am I missing something if I use OpenLink Virtuoso and don't upgrade to the commercial "Virtuoso Universal Server"?
I'm sorry to ask, but the web pages are not clear enough for me. I can't get any clear cut answer from the online documentation.
This is certainly not a programming question, so really not appropriate for StackOverflow. As it's about comparisons between two products from the same company, OpenLink Software (my employer), it's most appropriate for the OpenLink Community Forum.
That said, in short, yes, Virtuoso Enterprise Edition a/k/a Commercial Edition has several features that are not in Virtuoso Open Source Edition a/k/a VOS. Significant differences include Custom Inference Rules, Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC), Rule-Based Access Control for RDF Named Graphs, Federation/Virtualization of external SQL and RDF data sources, Replication Cluster options, Elastic/"Shared-Nothing" Cluster options, and more. We publish a useful feature comparison matrix, comparing VOS with Enterprise Edition from v5 to v8 (current).
All that said, you can start with VOS and migrate to Enterprise Edition if and when you discover a need for the Enterprise features, just by replacing the executables; the database does not need to be rebuilt. (Reverse migration is possible but takes more work, as this direction does require a dump and reload.) Similarly, you can start with a low-scale Enterprise license, and upgrade when/if you need to support more users, use more processors, add optional features, etc. You don't pay twice, as scale-upgrade licenses are priced at the difference between the existing and the new.
More details about any of the above are best gathered through the OpenLink Community Forum or by contacting our Sales team.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Our 5 developer MSDN license is about to expire. We are using TFS 2012. Do we really need to renew the license so that we keep using the TFS 2012 server?
I always thought the MSDN licenses were perpetual licenses. Meaning you keep using whatever software you have downloaded and installed after the MSDN license has expired. Recently, I tried searching for the word perpetual in the license agreement but it seems that Microsoft has removed the word.
I have talked to the resellers and they are saying that I need to buy the MSDN subscription but to be honest salespeople are always trying to sell you stuff even if you don't need it.
Can anyone shed more light on the subject please?
MSDN licenses are as far as I know limited to the term of the license. Think of them as a rental of software for the duration of the license. When it expires, they want their software back, just like a rental car agency.
If you are trying to keep your costs down, you may want to look at the following options to stay in compliance:
Microsoft Visual Studio Online, formerly TFS Online (https://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/products/visual-studio-online-pricing-vs.aspx)
5 free users
VS Community Edition for free
VS Professional available for $45/month per user
Microsoft Action Pack Subscription (https://mspartner.microsoft.com/en/us/Pages/Membership/action-pack.aspx)
$475 / year
Provides software for up to 10 users
Provides limited MSDN licenses for 3 developers, including VS2013 Professional
I think it is latest version of software only which is why I am putting limited.
Azure Credits
Lots of other benefits: https://mspartner.microsoft.com/en/us/pages/membership/action-pack-application-design-development.aspx#Market
So while I can understand the sticker shock of renewals (I feel them every year myself), using a few of Microsoft's programs for small businesses (if you qualify) sure makes it easier on the bank account.
From this link:
Microsoft licenses TFS under the Server/Client Access License (CAL) licensing model. You must have a license for each running instance of TFS and, with certain exceptions, a TFS CAL for each user or device that accesses it.
So you definitely need a subscription for a running TFS instance, however 5 MSDN accounts may not be needed. You do however get TFS with your MSDN subscription:
Eligible MSDN subscribers receive TFS and a TFS CAL as part of their subscription benefits.
In any case, read more about CAL here. And contact MS directly to get a license that best fits your needs.
I've just found something quite strange while talking with a Microsoft Licencing representative and I wanted to run this past the community to see if this is something that anyone is aware of a change.
I was asking a question around licencing SQL Server/ Windows Server which led to me being recommended an External Connector licence for a Website that does not use Windows Users.
I boiled this down to the basic scenario of:
Server 1:
Windows Server 2008 R2, running IIS 7.5, using a custom public facing Website using an home grown authentication mechanism (i.e. not Local Windows Users, or AD users) where the number of users (authenticated or not) is indeterminate.
Server 2:
Windows Server 2008 R2, running SQL Server 2008 R2.
The Website on Server 1 connects to SQL Server on Server 2 using a SQL authenticated login.
The licencing that is required is:
Windows Server Licence for Server 1
Windows Server Licence for Server 2
SQL Server "Per Processor" Licence
AND
An External Connector Licence for Server 2.
This seems preposterous as it triples the cost of the windows licence for Server 2. Also, as far as SQL Server is concerned, there are no multiple Clients connecting, only 1 "device" that then provides a massive "Value-add" on top of just the data from SQL Server.
My question, has anyone come across this before? It seems like this is wrong as the above, I would imagine, is the most common scenario for most .NET software houses that create web sites, and, having worked for a few, I've never heard of this!
I've seen this question:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3072044/external-connector-licensing-with-website-hosted-on-windows
However, it's not really got enough information on the scenario etc. and also doesn't quote any proper resources.
I would appreciate it if someone could actually point to a section within a reputable site about this, rather than just a link to the generic "Client licences" page.
Just a few additions to the otherwise excellent previous answer:
each individual license covers 2 cores:
This is wrong. Each core license covers one core, as you may expect. The fact is that the SKU, the product reference you may purchase, is a pack of 2 core licenses. This pack can be divided into 2 single core licenses if you need to when assigning your licenses to your servers. As a side note, I would be glad to know the name of the "brilliant" guy who created this SKU at Microsoft, as it adds a lot of confusion and generates a lot more work to my industry, the Software Asset Management (SAM).
I would go with Microsoft on this since they are the ones that would do the software audit:
This is wrong as well. Microsoft never does software audit on their own. They always delegate this to third parties. As a consequence, the inside knowledge of licensing rules is usually very poor at Microsoft and I strongly advice to ask licensing professionals instead, such as SAM consultants.
Regarding Martin's comment, the Microsoft Licensing people we deal with (an LAR) think differently:
A LAR, or LSP as it is now their new name, is usually a pure reseller and its licensing knowledge is usually very poor also. Their goal is to sell the most, not to make sure their customers are compliant, and optimized even less. I am not surprised they think differently. Again, ask SAM professionals instead.
Best regards,
Gilles
An External Connector License is in place of a Windows Server User/Device CAL:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/client-access-license.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/product-licensing.aspx
An External Connector is defined as:
"An External Connector (EC) license is an alternative to CALs for each server that external users will access. External users are users who are not employees or onsite contractors. An EC license assigned to a server permits access by any number of external users, as long as that access is for the benefit of the licensee and not the external user. Each physical server that external users access requires only one EC license regardless of the number of instances running. The right to run instances of the server software is licensed separately; the EC, like the CAL, simply permits access. EC licenses, like CALs, are version and functionality specific. They must be the same version or later than the server software being accessed. The decision on whether to acquire CALs or an EC for external users is primarily a financial one."
A Server Processor/Core License allows unlimited connections - whether internal or external (as long as you cover all the cores in your machine). For the SQL Core license (separate from Server : times the number by 1 for Intel, and .75 for certain models of AMD): http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=230678 (page 7-9).
Server 1: If it is a workload webserver, IIS does not require CAL's for external connectors - IIS is exempted ( http://microsoftlicensereview.com/category/external-connectors/ ). The Windows Server does require User/Device Server CALs (if it is licensed that way) for employees or onsite contractors. For offsite users who authenticate to the server, not only for website related information, if it makes more sense to purchase the external connector license rather than User/Device CALs for these users, then you would want to do that.
Server 2: In addition to similar license as above for this server, the SQL Server would require either: Per Core License (each individual license covers 2 cores, you need as many licenses as the core factor for your machine); OR 1 SQL Server license + User/Device Cals for all users who connect to the website on Site which is pulling SQL data.
This keeps you from doing multiplexing, which is described here:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/briefs/multiplexing.aspx
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=230678 (page 17).
Here is an article that explains it further (she mentions offsite contractors, which is different than onsite contractors - which would need a User/Device CAL):
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsoft-cals-and-external-connector-license
So, it would appear that since the user is connecting to the SQL server via the web application on Server 1, and not authenticating to Server 2 (if Server 1 connects to SQL directly with string rather than authentication), it would not seem like the External Connector license is not needed on Server 2 (but I would go with Microsoft on this since they are the ones that would do the software audit).
Hope that helps.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have to test my product with SQL Server database. Based on the search, I know I have to get hold of Developer Edition. I need to know whether for my team of 10 to access the database for testing needs 10 CALs or 10 developer licenses?
I searched enough in the net but couldn't find a straight answer.
My test setup will be like, SQL Server Developer Edition will be installed in a Test QA machine and my team will connect to that machine to test our product with.
Thanks,
ramanr
For SQL Server 2008 Developer, Microsoft's licensing page states:
You must acquire a license for each user you permit to access or use the
software. You may install any number of copies on any number of devices for
access and use by one user to design, develop, test and demonstrate
programs. Only licensed users may access the software.
They also state:
Demonstration. In addition to the licensed user, any person that has
access to your internal network may install and use copies of the software
to demonstrate use of your programs with the software.
ISTR SQL Server 2005 is similar: i.e., one copy per developer.
In addition to Chris J's answer, the licensing also provides:
II) Additional Licensing Requirements and/or Use Rights.
User Testing. Your end users may access the software to perform acceptance tests on your programs.
Microsoft answers:
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/developer.aspx
This is not a technical question, but thought I'd throw it out anyway.
I am in need of a rough size of the End-User Database Application market. Specifically, I'm talking about products like Microsoft Access and Filemaker Pro.
Does anyone know where I could find such information (preferably without paying $5000 for a market research report...)?
microsoft annual report should talk about ms access, and have info about market size, penetration, forcase, etc.