Vista EULA Restricts Virtualization Use

[MacinDoc]

how is this any different than apple's end user-license agreement for mac os x? here is section 2A:



the language implies that virtualization on the same machine using the same software is forbidden. on the other hand, windows xp's end-user licence agreement also has similar language disallowing multiple copies of the same software to be run on the same computer:



microsoft's vista license just makes the virtualization part explicit. so i don't know what the hubub is over vista's license since the mac os x and windows xp licenses say the same thing, but not explicitly.

Apple's license doesn't specify limitations of use in a virtualized environment.

I find section 1.1 of Microsoft's license agreement rather amusing...

The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.

I guess that means you can't legally run XP on a Core Duo or Core2 Duo system...

 

[Westside guy]

I don't know about Parallels, but with VMware you should use your "real" Windows install (the one accessible from Boot Camp) as a virtual machine as well. It's a handy solution in general; plus I would think it only counts as a single install.

Or at least I've done that with Linux/Windows/Grub on a Dell, in any case. It's not for the faint of heart though. And (in case I get PM'ed) I'll just say right off that you're on your own figuring it out - you can really b0rk your disk if you're not careful, so I don't want to be responsible for someone else's disk getting hosed.

 

[pyramid6]

I don't care what anyone says, even "Microsoft". Until an amendment is apply to the licensee agreement, I'm going to use it the way it is stated. I'm not going to install the software in a virtual machine on the licensed device.

My guess is the licensee, either is correct as written, or they will release a new agreement when the actual product ships. If MS intends for thier software not to be installed in a VM, they will clarify in the license agreement.

 

[jhu]

I don't care what anyone says, even "Microsoft". Until an amendment is apply to the licensee agreement, I'm going to use it the way it is stated. I'm not going to install the software in a virtual machine on the licensed device.

My guess is the licensee, either is correct as written, or they will release a new agreement when the actual product ships. If MS intends for thier software not to be installed in a VM, they will clarify in the license agreement.

the way it's worded actually can take two meanings:

1) the software installed on the host system can't be used to install again as guest system on the virtual machine on the same host system.

2) installing the software on a virtual machine as a guest system implies installing on a host computer that is running the virtualization software. that makes the host computer the actual "licensed" device. however, because the software is running in a virtual machine on the licensed device, this is contradicted by the eula.

you could argue whether or not vista would be able to detect that it's running on a virtual machine. i'd rather argue about the validity of all of these eula's that we're supposed to abide by but don't.

 

[balamw]

I guess that means you can't legally run XP on a Core Duo or Core2 Duo system...

Even for XP Home multi-core processors are considered one processor. It's the number of chips that counts. All started when Intel started Hyperthreading P4 CPUs (i.e. presenting them as 2 CPUs).

B

 

[Choppaface]

you mean people PAY for windows?

 

[gnasher729]

I have no issues with having the software installed once, although Apple allowing certain products to be installed on a desktop AND a laptop is great. But, I do not steal software. I really like what Apple does with their 'Family Packs'. You can add ~ 25-30% to the price and install it on five machines. That is great marketing and very fair.

Since I don't have a "Family Pack": Could you have a look at the license and check whether it would allow installing on three Macs plus in a virtual machine on two of these Macs for a total of five copies?

 

[gnasher729]

Ummmm ... The Oct 18 Update in that link says exactly what we've been saying here: you can't legally run Vista Home editions in a VM. Period.

I would be careful. Macintosh users are probably a bit unusual in that they want to run Vista in a virtual machine _only_, and not as the real operating system. Most PC users would want to run Vista _both_ as their operating system and on a virtual machine; that would be two copies, whereas Macintosh users only want to run one copy. (Of course, most Mac users actually want to run zero copies of Vista...) So anybody issuing any clarification might not have given the Macintosh situation any thought.

And it doesn't say anywhere that the "dedicated machine" couldn't be a virtual machine in the first place.

 

[jhu]

Since I don't have a "Family Pack": Could you have a look at the license and check whether it would allow installing on three Macs plus in a virtual machine on two of these Macs for a total of five copies?

here's the 5-pack eula:

ADDENDUM to Software License Agreement for Mac OS X

The first and second sentences of Section 2A of the Software License Agreement for Mac OS X are revised as follows:

A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household. By "household" we mean a person or persons who share the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home or condominium, but shall also extend to student members who are primary residents of that household but residing at a separate on-campus location. This license does not extend to business or commercial users.

The remainder of this Section 2 and all other terms and conditions of this Agreement remain in full force and effect.

1 license for 1 copy of the software on one computer.

 

[CReimer]

Web Development...

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

On my MacBook, the BootCamp install is for software that needs direct access to the hardware and where performance under virtualization would suck. I run Windows XP/Vista under Parallels to check out how the web pages that I create on the Mac side using MAMP. Seriously, who in their right mind would install IE7 on their Windows system before the first service pack comes out?

 

[sccaldwell]

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?

More importantly, for Mac users, why would we *want* to run Vista at all? Oh, you *have* to for some reason? Sorry to hear that...very unfortunate.

Craig

 

[WildPalms]

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.

No, incorrect Dave. Its pretty evident. Business edition or better to run in a virtual environment regardless of the platform the VM is hosted on. End of discussion.

 

[jhu]

No, incorrect Dave. Its pretty evident. Business edition or better to run in a virtual environment regardless of the platform the VM is hosted on. End of discussion.

the wording is rather ambiguous. we know a priori that microsoft's intention is not to allow running home edition on a virtual machine. however, this is not evident in how the eula is worded. as i've mentioned before, it can be interpreted a few ways. on the other hand there's the provision for not allowing the software to run on "virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware." where exactly does this stop? can it be run on an fpga? in some sense, all current x86 processors are emulating the instruction set. so would that leave the original pentium processor the only processor allowed by the eula? does running the software on a transmeta processor constitute "otherwise emulated hardware"? i'm wondering how and why legal departments like to come up with such ambiguous and unclear wording.

 

[technicolor]

Uh who cares?
Like thats gonna stop anyone....does anybody outside of the few goody goodies on this board read or abide by those EULAs?

And most ppl will pirate it anyways....

 

[fblack]

Uh who cares?

Lots of people obviously...

Like thats gonna stop anyone....does anybody outside of the few goody goodies on this board read or abide by those EULAs?

And most ppl will pirate it anyways....

But oh how could I have missed it, you reside in never never land! The place of pirates and children who never grow up!

 

[toughboy]

As if I bought any Windows copies legally..

Ok its good to know this.. I'll download the Ultimate version of Vista then, not the Home Sweet Home version

F. U. Microsoft.. never gonna take any penny of mine again.. You suck and you always will..

 

[technicolor]

Ok its good to know this.. I'll download the Ultimate version of Vista then, not the Home Sweet Home version

F. U. Microsoft.. never gonna take any penny of mine again.. You suck and you always will..

 

[jhu]

Ok its good to know this.. I'll download the Ultimate version of Vista then, not the Home Sweet Home version

F. U. Microsoft.. never gonna take any penny of mine again.. You suck and you always will..

that's why you'll "steal" from microsoft and buy from apple? nice ethics there. unless you were going to "steal" from apple too.

 

[balamw]

The Vista EULA has been modified, presumably to relax the restrictions on reinstalling Vista and upgrading hardware... No changes to the limitations on virtualization for Home Basic and Home Premuim.

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...-to-windows-vista-retail-licensing-terms.aspx

B