[Samba] how legal is samba

[Buchan Milne]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Message: 29
> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:32:07 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Tom Crummey <tom at ee.ucl.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Samba] how legal is samba
> To: eholden at mclean.harvard.edu
> Cc: samba at lists.samba.org
> Message-ID: <200311210932.hAL9W7B00525 at picard.ee.ucl.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hello Ed,
>
> My understanding of the licensing issue is that *any* client that uses
> a windows server, whether directly, or indirectly via Samba requires
> a Client Access license.

AFAIK this was the case with NT4. And AFAIK they changed it in win2k so
that you had no CAL licensing incentive to install samba servers into a
win2k domain, so now you need a CAL for each client that *authenticates*
to a Windows 2000 server. Thus, if you run a samba domain, your clients
all authenticate to a samba domain controller, and no CALs are needed
for Windows 2000 member servers (as respecting file/print service - you
still need CALs for other services such as MSSQL etc).

Of course, you should read the EULAs etc yourself and/or ask your legal
representative for their opinion.

IMHO, better to avoid agreeing to the EULAs in the first place, then
they have no legal basis to audit your premises.

Regards,
Buchan

- --
|--------------Another happy Mandrake Club member--------------|
Buchan Milne                Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager
Cellphone * Work            +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202
Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering         http://www.cae.co.za
GPG Key                   http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc
1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/vkFxrJK6UGDSBKcRAguTAJ9VYq2iZu2bgeh2G82SOl2HmkPC2ACfTjG4
irUWsWExSxrNJyTcHYTG07Y=
=zrZm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----