Vista EULA Restricts Virtualization Use

[MacRumors]

As first noted in a HardMac forum post, it appears Microsoft is specifying in its license agreements that the ability to operate in a virtualized environment is prohibited in Home Basic and Home Premium editions, leaving users to have to purchase either the Business or the Ultimate versions of the software to legally run in a virtualized environment.

Mac users have found virtualization solutions such as Parallels Desktop a good way to switch between Mac OS X and Windows. This latest news from Microsoft may inhibit some use of the software as Business and Ultimate editions range from $300-400 verses Home Basic's $200 price point (prices).

Microsoft's EULA agreements can be found here.

 

[daveschroeder]

This is incorrect.

Microsoft's Vista EULA says:

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".

This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization product on any platform. If that instance of Vista is not installed anywhere else, there is no preexisting "licensed device".

The reason this is included in the EULA is because Vista Business and Ultimate actually include additional licenses specifically so the same license can be used to also run in a virtualization environment on the same device where Vista is already installed.

So, the higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.

In any case, all versions of Vista can be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such as Parallels or VMWare.

 

[Abstract]

As if that's going to stop people. Most people don't even know about these usage restrictions.

 

[countach]

This is incorrect.

Microsoft's Vista EULA says:

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the licensed device.

This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization product on any platform.

The word "same" never occurs in the text, which never contemplates multiple installs.

It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.

 

[themacolyte]

Microsoft seems to be making every attempt to encourage piracy at this point. Is it possible for Windows to check this and refuse to run? It seems to me Microsoft is attempting to take control of hardware virally, i.e. if their EULAs were enforceable they are including statements that allow them to dictate what hardware you have and when/how you upgrade it...

"If you want to upgrade your computer, you need to call and ask us first. If you want to run our software, it better be on hardware we approve of, ask us who sells that."

There are some who claim that as long as Microsoft doesn't enforce their own EULAs then let them say what they want. Some will claim that the EULAs won't hold up in court so who cares what they say. Is it prudent to assume this and just hope for the best?

 

[Pragmatic67]

Is this a legal or technical restriction?

just to clear up the confusion, is this a legal or technical restriction? Can you still do this with the basic edition technically, but illegally. Or are there technical restrictions being applied?

 

[Ktulu]

A bit confused

If Vista can run soley in a virtuallized environment without breaking the EULA, but not be installed on a machine that also is using it in a virtualized way. How does this affect anyone-(Mac or PC)?

If I own a PC and I want to run Vista, why would I want to also run Vista, on the same machine, in a virtual environment?

For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?

What situation is there that you would want to run the same OS on the same box, one natively installed and one in virtualization?

Very confused about how this affects anyone?

 

[andiwm2003]

This is incorrect.

Microsoft's Vista EULA says:

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the licensed device.

This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization product on any platform.

The reason this is included in the EULA is because Vista Business and Ultimate actually include additional licenses specifically so the same license can be used to also run in a virtualization environment on the same device where Vista is already installed.

So, the higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.

In any case, all versions of Vista can be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such as Parallels or VMWare.

that sounds more reasonable to me. i'm not a lawyer but i thought in most countries it would be not legal to restrict the software use to certain hardware settings after you bought a full version.

 

[Scarlet Fever]

As if that's going to stop people. Most people don't even know about these usage restrictions.

There are usage restrictions? joking...


seriously, since when have people done as M$ tell you to do? Don't something like 35% of Windows-based computers run illegal copies of the OS?

 

[daveschroeder]

The word "same" never occurs in the text, which never contemplates multiple installs.

It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.

Vista Business and Ultimate include additional licenses to also run the same licensed copy of Vista running natively on the licensed device in a virtualization environment as well.

In other words, if you purchase or build a PC with Windows Vista Ultimate, you can use that same installation and license to install it in a virtualization environment on that same platform. That goes beyond what has been done on any other platform for virtualization, and why the limitation is specifically delineated on Vista Home:

You may not use the software installed[1] on the licensed device[2] within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

[1] This means "the software" (i.e., Vista Home Basic or Premium) is already installed on a licensed device.

[2] The "licensed device" is the device that Vista Home is already installed on, and that license may not be reused to also install it in a virtualization environment, which you CAN do with Vista Business and Ultimate, because Microsoft includes additional licenses specifically for virtualization use, which is why there are all these specifics about virtualization use on the lower end Vista versions in the EULA in the first place.

The Vista Business/Ultimate EULA on the same topic states:

6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If
you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management
services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications
protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights
management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.

This is because Vista Business and Ultimate include additional licenses so that you can use the same copy, legally ALSO within a virtualization environment on that same system. This is more than is possible with any other commercial OS, from a licensing perspective. The restrictions on Vista Home are ONLY restricting you from using it in a VM on the device where it's already installed. If you buy Vista Home standalone as a retail box, and it's not installed anywhere else, you are free, legally and technically, to use it in a VM to your heart's content.

 

[daveschroeder]

just to clear up the confusion, is this a legal or technical restriction? Can you still do this with the basic edition technically, but illegally. Or are there technical restrictions being applied?

It's neither, as I've already explained.

But to answer your question, even if there were a legal restriction, there is definitely not any technical restriction that would prevent it from being installed in a VM anywhere.

 

[SiCbe]

For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?

What situation is there that you would want to run the same OS on the same box, one natively installed and one in virtualization?

well I would want to install Vista in bootcamp to play games... and the same one under parallels to be able to do simple tasks in windows without having to reboot OSX... until parallels comes up with that 3d enabled version we'll have to install it twice ;-)

 

[Blackcat]

B ULLSHIT.

The word "same" never occurs in the text, which never contemplates multiple installs.

It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.

It's legalise. It's saying you can't run it in a VM on a device it is already installed on, or a VM on another device than it is installed on. If the VM is another OS (or another Vista license) you're allowed providing it's the only installation.

 

[AnyKey]

My Windows Choice

Well then...if this is the case, who needs XP or Vista? I may just install Windows RG on my macbook pro when I get it. And yes...we educated Windows RG users use only the best hardware. I'll be waiting for C2D too.

For me, it's either Mac OS Windows RG.

For a preview of Windows RG: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/winrg.php

 

[Maestro64]

Obviously, if they are saying you are not allow, that means they can not stop you from doing so. It's a simple warning beacuse if you call them up about a problem in VM mode they will simply tell you it is not support and you will have to pay another $200 to get any support.

Remember once someone sells you something they can not tell you how you can use it. That like you buying a car and in the purchase agreement they tell you your not allow to wreck the car. Grant it, they do not have to warranty it after you wreck it, but if you want to wreck it, that is up to you.

 

[zulgand04]

i was reading solmewhere the other day, don't rember where but it was sayin something along the lines of not being able to transfer a copy from one computer to another. example runing a copy of vista on a pc1, then get rid of that one takeing windows off it and wanting to run it on my new pc2 will not work. Due to the licences is resticted to the one computer you instal it on the first time. It was on digg the other day.

-Neal

 

[combatcolin]

UNLESS BILL SENDS THE BOYS ROUND THIS ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE PIRATES.

(Me included)

Big impact on buisness applications though.

 

[hob]

oh great. so those mac users who are possibly interested in actually getting a legitimate version now have to pay a lot...

...kinda puts one of getting a legitimate version...

 

[daveschroeder]

oh great. so those mac users who are possibly interested in actually getting a legitimate version now have to pay a lot...

...kinda puts one of getting a legitimate version...

Did you read any of the thread so far?

You can use Vista Home standalone in a virtualization environment legally.

This is purely a misinterpretation of the EULA.

 

[Willis]

What a load of crap. People always make out Apple try and get your hard earned cash, but it seems nowadays its everyone else!

Microsoft are just going to cause more problems for themselves because prohibiting the use of the basic and home editions to be used, people will just get a cracked version, because thats what most people do.

Pointless!

 

[balamw]

Did you read any of the thread so far?

You can use Vista Home standalone in a virtualization environment legally.

This is purely a misinterpretation of the EULA.

Dave,

I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS.

The earlier thread on this topic is here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/243716/

B

 

[Lord Blackadder]

The bottom line is that this is just one more EULA violation that people will ignore on a daily basis, unless MS implements some way of enforcing it.

 

[tny]

Did you read any of the thread so far?

You can use Vista Home standalone in a virtualization environment legally.

This is purely a misinterpretation of the EULA.

If they didn't understand this on /., they're not going to understand this here, either.

 

[iMeowbot]

This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".

This is incorrect. The license says nothing at all about the "same installation" or any such nonsense. If that's what they meant, that's what they would have written.

The clause is there so that MS can lean on companies that want to buy bargain basement Windows and run multiple instances of it under Linux. They want customers to pony up for the expensive version if they want to do that at all.

This isn't the type of clause that would make sense for them to try to audit personal users, too much cost for too little revenue. Business users really do need to avoid the home versions if they want to run virtually.

 

[FoxyKaye]

...seriously, since when have people done as M$ tell you to do? Don't something like 35% of Windows-based computers run illegal copies of the OS?

Can I get an Amen? This is just M$ trying to frack with Mac switchers who still want to use Windows on their Macs. I don't know anyone who as ever read any M$ EULA in any great detail - but, if they start an urban legend that it's "illegal" to use Windows on a Mac, then people won't read the EULA and just believe M$ will somehow find out they're emulating Vista on their MacBook and shut off the installation remotely. Look at how much gobbledygook M$ has already put out about Vista and "activation", piracy, and other "security" measures.

These aren't the droids you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along, move along.