Hi,
tldr'ers skip to **
I'm currently in progress of making a proposal to a potential customer for a small application to be installed on a server in their datacenter. As the application footprint is really very small and will not grow by much I suggested to host the database on an existing SQL server (of which they seem to have already quite a few) or on a local SQL Express instance.
They replied to me their internal IT policies do not permit shared SQL servers to be used as each application should use dedicated resources (what a policy :/) On top, SQL express 'does not match their requirements as an enterprise, in regard of managability and scalability' So they force me to install a full blown SQL on the server, regardless of cost or need (they even let me freely choose standard, enterprise, 2008, 2012,...). I wonder hw that will be more amangeable with such a server for tiny application.
Of course, I was worried about cost, as I know SQL seldom is a cheap product (no offence intended). In response to my worries the (local) IT manager replied 'all licenses are covered within the EA' and 'we do not pay more if we install more servers' This does not match what I know about Enterprise agreements, but I obviously don't know everything!
This story leaves me with 2 (somewhat large :) ) questions:
**
- IS this possible? Are there (large) Microsoft customers who do have such an agreement with Microsoft that whatever they install or have running in regards of Windows OS and SQL server is recovered within the one and the same cost?
- If my (potential) customer proves to be dishonest about licensing to me as a third party who has done a 'one order one install' where does that leave me? What if there is a licensing audit and the customer points to a delivery contract carrying my company stamp? Could my company be held responsible in any way?
MCP/MCSA/MCTS/MCITP