[Samba] Samba4, MS CAL and Windows Server as domain member
L.P.H. van Belle
belle at bazuin.nl
Tue Nov 5 04:05:23 MST 2013
>Van: samba at cardon.it [mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org]
>Verzonden: dinsdag 5 november 2013 10:39
>Aan: samba at lists.samba.org
>Onderwerp: [Samba] Samba4, MS CAL and Windows Server as domain member
>I have a licencing question : do one need to buy CAL for every
>user in a Samba4 domain when there is a Windows Server as a
>domain member, knowing that the Windows server will be
>accessed using SMB by Windows workstations?
If your workstations connect to this server you need a device cal. ( for example printing )
Every window "PRO" is included with a device cal.
IF the user connects to this server you need a user cal. ( share access / authorisation )
but, for example, if you only have 5 user connecting to this server out of a 100.
You only need 5 user cal's ( which is included with the server licence )
>As per http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/using_samba/ch01.html
>and many other web sites, one of the main advantage of samba
>is that no user CALs are required. And I think the case is
>clear when there are only Windows workstation and one samba server.
>However, in the case where I have a Windows member server
>joined to the Samba4 domain, do I need user CAL to access that
>windows server throught SMB protocol? The MS licencing seems
>to say yes
>ss-license.aspx). But I cannot imagine how this could not be
>considered as anticompetitive practice, at least here in
>Europe... Indeed, it would remove the main financial advantage
>of Samba4 over MSAD.
If the user authorisation is done with samba4, and there is no connection done to the windows server.
then you dont need a windows user/device cal.
If you have for example en MS SQL server running and you connect to the database,
but not to printer and/or shares on the server, so only a connection by port for sql,
then, you only need sql licences. ( and the server licence ofcourse)
>I have a client with an old Windows 2003 AD with all the
>associated CALs that would need get an upgrade, and they would
>prefer to go on the samba4 path. However if they have to pay
>all the user CALs, the boss don't see any financial interest,
>but only sees the risk associated with the migration.
The same risk is also there when you migrate/upgrade to windows XXX servers.
>So, here are my questions... First a weird one : does the 2003
>user CAL are "compatible" (in the licencing legal way) with a
>samba4 server in 2008R2 forest mode in order for the windows
>workstation to access both linux and windows server on the network?
see above. ( note, a windows 2003 cal is not a windows 2008 cal )
but, if you keep the 2003 server, you can use the calls even in 2008 mode.
if you upgrade the 2003 to 2008, then you wil need to upgrade the cal's also.
>Second : Is the CAL version requirement relative to the Active
>Directory version or to the highest Windows server version on
>the network? That is to say, if I add a win2k8 server on a
>domain managed by an win2k3 AD, do I have to buy win2k8 CAL?
depends on FSMO roles and how you are accessing the servers.
>I have not found any definitive answer on the internet. I can
>only imagine that the CALs are associated to the number of
>Active Directory accounts and Active Directory version,
>otherwise one get kafkaesque issues. But in the case of
>samba4, the notion of Active Directory version seems exotic...
>Do any of you have any experience on those licencing questions?
Yes, i have..
My setup is as follow, Windows 2008R2 ADC and samba 4 DC. all FSMO roles are transferred to samba.
Samba handles the profiles/ user auth, printing, file share-ing.
My windows server(s) are 1 x 2003 member server, 1 x 2008 R2 server ADC.
The 2003 server is running Voip software, the 2008R2 is running MS SQL for my voip software.
( a boss who bought something without consulting IT first... :-(( )
I only have 5 user licences, de one included with the server.
also, only 3 user connects to the windows server, everything else is done by samba.
I've had a SAM-evaluation by MS, and im fully legit this way, acording to microsoft.
So yes, you can save costs in licencing.
>Thanks for you input. Samba4 rocks!
Totaly agreed with that. !
>To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
More information about the samba