Access Essentials Named-User Licensing Enforcement
Saturday, 07 October 2006 by Michel Roth
Named-User license enforcement has recently been a discussion topic in the engineering team working on the next version of CAE. In this article, I'll give a little background, discuss the requirements for Named-User licensing and what are plans are in the next version of Access Essentials.

Licensing is a thorny issue - fundamentally it's an anti-feature - a 'feature' that's implemented for the benefit of vendor (in this case Citrix), rather than the customer (unless you subscribe to the view that enforcement takes the worry out of remaining compliant with the license). This means that whilst it must achieve our goal (protecting our product from unlicensed use), it also needs to have the least burden on customers we can achieve. We know the implementation in CAE 1.0 and 1.5 is creating some confusion, and we want to address this.

Let's start with the basics. Access Essentials is licensed for a variable number (maximum 75) of Named-Users, in increments of 5 users. By Named-User we mean, literally, a named individual, a person. You purchase 15 licenses, 15 named individuals are allowed to use the product. Sounds simple, nothing to hard about that, you just have a list of 15 accounts and only allow people on that list to use the product, right?

Read the rest of the article here.

Related Items:

Brian Madden Paper On "New" Citrix Licensing (Part 1 Of 2) (9 February 2005)
Heads-up On Citrix Access Essentials 2.0 (2 July 2007)
What’s New In Terminal Services Licensing For Longhorn? (5 April 2007)
Access Essentials 2.0 (23 April 2007)
Why Microsoft is sabotaging desktop virtualization (12 August 2009)
Microsoft In Final Talks To Buy Softricity (19 May 2006)
Unsupported Citrix Access Essentials Features (24 May 2006)
Terminal Services Licensing Diagnosis (3 December 2007)
Jeff Pitsch' Thoughts On Why Citrix Streaming Support Will Be A Success (10 April 2007)
The License-File Mechanics Of Subscription Advantage (28 February 2007)
Comments (0)