A Justification for Server CALs? 74
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?"
because that is how they choose to sell it (Score:3, Insightful)
A balance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft (since you use the term CAL) has given most products the option of either being per processor (a decent compromise in "bang for your buck" at the high end) or per server with CALs (a decent compromise at the low end, while scaling the revenue with usage). Frankly, I don't find it odd at all, unless you want to contrast it with free software.
That's Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the argument could be made that since Microsoft is a convicted monopoly [usdoj.gov] you don't really have a choice, but enforcing anti-trust law is part of captialism too.
Attempt to be fair; pay proportional to usage (Score:4, Insightful)
Server CALs are just another tool in balancing software costs proportional to the usage (customer perceived value) and ability to pay.
It may be partly greed, but remember that most companies have to use their successes to recoup the costs of software that DIDN'T sell. Remember Infocom? Looking Glass Studios? Pricing is an art. CALs are a tool.
Just because ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, it's not a bad setup - that way the large companies that use it for thousands of clients get to foot a lot more of the R&D and support costs than the small companies using it for 10 clients. I don't really see the problem here.