A Justification for Server CALs?

bourne.again asks: "I'm a bit confused about server client access licenses (CALs). I've looked at it from every angle I can think of, but I'm still stumped. I can't think of any justification for CALs other than greed. If you think about it, requiring CALs means that it is possible to buy a copy of a Windows server OS that can run on a server, but can't actually server anything because it has no CALs. That's a bit ridiculous. The same goes for per-cpu licenses. Shouldn't it just be per machine? An extra CPU doesn't allow you the full capabilities of a second machine. It's still just one server/workstation. Can somebody enlighten me on this, please? Why should we pay for server software, and pay per client too?"

Let me get this straight...

[linuxwrangler]

...you're asking a bunch of Open Source fanatics for a justification for client access licenses? Good luck.

Re:Attempt to be fair; pay proportional to usage

[Anonymous Coward]

CALs are a tool.

My name is Cal, you insensitive clod!