Paul Robichaux caused some ripples in the calm waters of Microsoft licensing when he wrote about a question that he had received from a Windows IT Pro Magazine reader. The reader was upgrading an Exchange 2003 deployment to Exchange 2010 gradually by introducing a new Client Access Server (CAS) only to be told (presumably by his local Microsoft office) that he had to immediately purchase an Exchange 2010 Client Access License (CAL) for each of his 300 users!
The logic offered was: “Since all incoming mail must go through the Exchange 2010 Client Access Server, it uses Exchange 2010. Therefore, the new CAL is required”
If I were to be picky, I’d say that the logic is flawed because incoming mail certainly flows through a hub transport server but never through a CAS. Now, if the statement was that all incoming client connections must go through the CAS, that would be a different and far more accurate position. In any case, Paul asked Microsoft to cast some light into the darker and lesser-known corners of their licensing architecture and to justify why they would seemingly penalize people who are attempting to do what Microsoft badly wants – to move from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2010. As I understand it, discussions continue…
In any case, Paul has created a survey that he would like your help with. The idea is to collect some data to help argue the case with Microsoft and hopefully persuade them to take a more reasonable approach to the need to buy Exchange 2010 CALs. Please consider completing the survey – no personal data is collected.