It seems that Microsoft has updated and published the EULA for Vista and
they have banned use of Vista, except for the ultimate version, on any
virtualization technology. Aside from being annoying and probably
unenforceable, does anyone have a clue why they did this?
I’ve seen the scare-mongering on various web sites but I don’t see the prohibition you mention anywhere in the license. The only reference to virtualization that I see is:
USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
While I haven’t checked with our lawyers, or contacted anybody in MS licensing, to ME (personal opinion) this means that you need to run A SEPARATELY LICENSED INSTANCE OF VISTA in your VM. You can’t use “the software installed on the licensed device” (that is THE SAME SOFTWARE) “on a virtual… system.”
This is to clarify the difference between Vista and certain server releases where you ARE allowed to run as many instances as you wish (using the SAME LICENSE) on VMs on the same machine.
I would be VERY interested to know of anybody has any definitive info from MS Licensing on the intent of this clause. Absent such info, that’s my reading…
P
The latest EULA is here:
http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Home%20
Basic_English_6d3e0409-7a2c-4239-b850-d41210b71b13.pdf
HOME BASIC:
“4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software
installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise
emulated) hardware system.”
ULTIMATE:
- 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."
I think the wording is rather clear and I think your interpretation
makes not much sense. So you can use ultimate within a VM without a
separate license?
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of xxxxx@osr.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:31 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] VISTA and VM
I’ve seen the scare-mongering on various web sites but I don’t see the
prohibition you mention anywhere in the license. The only reference to
virtualization that I see is:
USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software
installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise
emulated) hardware system.
While I haven’t checked with our lawyers, or contacted anybody in MS
licensing, to ME (personal opinion) this means that you need to run A
SEPARATELY LICENSED INSTANCE OF VISTA in your VM. You can’t use “the
software installed on the licensed device” (that is THE SAME SOFTWARE)
“on a virtual… system.”
This is to clarify the difference between Vista and certain server
releases where you ARE allowed to run as many instances as you wish
(using the SAME LICENSE) on VMs on the same machine.
I would be VERY interested to know of anybody has any definitive info
from MS Licensing on the intent of this clause. Absent such info,
that’s my reading…
P
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
xxxxx@osr.com wrote:
I’ve seen the scare-mongering on various web sites but I don’t see the prohibition you mention anywhere in the license. The only reference to virtualization that I see is:
>USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
>While I haven’t checked with our lawyers, or contacted anybody in MS licensing, to ME (personal opinion) this means that you need to run A SEPARATELY LICENSED INSTANCE OF VISTA in your VM.
I think you are reading too much into it. Even if I have 5 licenses on
one computer, it looks to me like that clause prevents me from
installing ANY of them in a virtual environment.
You can’t use “the software installed on the licensed device” (that is THE SAME SOFTWARE) “on a virtual… system.”
The “licensed device” is the physical machine on which Vista is
running. How can I possibly get a copy of Vista running in a virtual
system without installing it on the machine where it will be licensed?
No, I think Mark is correct. That clause absolutely prohibits Vista in
a VM.
However, that clause is only in the Vista Home EULAs. The Business and
Ultimate EULAs have language that DOES allow virtualization, as long as
you don’t try to do DRM stuff.
Absent such info, that’s my reading…
Me, too. I ain’t no lawyer.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
WinHEC is now a dim memory but I seem to recall that when they
announced that virtualisation would be free they also announced that
the o/s licence would include what they called the “one plus one”
model. Allowing one copy of the licensed o/s to run as a guest.
The variation in EULA regarding different versions of Vista seems
arbitrary but also no doubt deemed by the marketing guys to be a
wonderful opportunity for up-sell to a version supporting virtualisation.
I don’t recall anyone mentioning DRM at time but I suppose it is
logical that the lawyers have caused it to be added to the EULA. The
DRM guys live in their own magical universe of unreality, anyway.
Mark.
At 09:52 PM 10/16/2006, Tim Roberts wrote:
xxxxx@osr.com wrote:
>I’ve seen the scare-mongering on various web sites but I don’t see
the prohibition you mention anywhere in the license. The only
reference to virtualization that I see is:
>
>
> >USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the
> software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or
> otherwise emulated) hardware system.
> >
>
>While I haven’t checked with our lawyers, or contacted anybody in
MS licensing, to ME (personal opinion) this means that you need to
run A SEPARATELY LICENSED INSTANCE OF VISTA in your VM.
>I think you are reading too much into it. Even if I have 5 licenses on
one computer, it looks to me like that clause prevents me from
installing ANY of them in a virtual environment.>You can’t use “the software installed on the licensed device”
(that is THE SAME SOFTWARE) “on a virtual… system.”
>
>The “licensed device” is the physical machine on which Vista is
running. How can I possibly get a copy of Vista running in a virtual
system without installing it on the machine where it will be licensed?
No, I think Mark is correct. That clause absolutely prohibits Vista in
a VM.However, that clause is only in the Vista Home EULAs. The Business and
Ultimate EULAs have language that DOES allow virtualization, as long as
you don’t try to do DRM stuff.>Absent such info, that’s my reading…
>Me, too. I ain’t no lawyer.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Just to pile on, the more I learn about this the worse it gets. The
Vista Eula restricts its use to one device with a one time right to
transfer to a second device. This is a major change from XP licensing
terms, which also had the one device restriction but intentionally or
not allowed unlimited transfers from one machine to another. Note that
this restriction applies to an upgrade that results in a reactivation.
My development system has been running the same licensed version of XP
through three complete overhauls, how about yours?
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Mark S. Edwards
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:26 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re: [ntdev] VISTA and VM
WinHEC is now a dim memory but I seem to recall that when they
announced that virtualisation would be free they also announced that
the o/s licence would include what they called the “one plus one”
model. Allowing one copy of the licensed o/s to run as a guest.
The variation in EULA regarding different versions of Vista seems
arbitrary but also no doubt deemed by the marketing guys to be a
wonderful opportunity for up-sell to a version supporting
virtualisation.
I don’t recall anyone mentioning DRM at time but I suppose it is
logical that the lawyers have caused it to be added to the EULA. The
DRM guys live in their own magical universe of unreality, anyway.
Mark.
At 09:52 PM 10/16/2006, Tim Roberts wrote:
xxxxx@osr.com wrote:
>I’ve seen the scare-mongering on various web sites but I don’t see
the prohibition you mention anywhere in the license. The only
reference to virtualization that I see is:
>
>
> >USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the
> software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or
> otherwise emulated) hardware system.
> >
>
>While I haven’t checked with our lawyers, or contacted anybody in
MS licensing, to ME (personal opinion) this means that you need to
run A SEPARATELY LICENSED INSTANCE OF VISTA in your VM.
>I think you are reading too much into it. Even if I have 5 licenses on
one computer, it looks to me like that clause prevents me from
installing ANY of them in a virtual environment.>You can’t use “the software installed on the licensed device”
(that is THE SAME SOFTWARE) “on a virtual… system.”
>
>The “licensed device” is the physical machine on which Vista is
running. How can I possibly get a copy of Vista running in a virtual
system without installing it on the machine where it will be licensed?
No, I think Mark is correct. That clause absolutely prohibits Vista in
a VM.However, that clause is only in the Vista Home EULAs. The Business and
Ultimate EULAs have language that DOES allow virtualization, as long as
you don’t try to do DRM stuff.>Absent such info, that’s my reading…
>Me, too. I ain’t no lawyer.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
I’ve read some about this, but something doesn’t make sense too me… In
XP if you make enough
hardware changes you must re-activate (new hard drive, replacing a nic,
increasing ram, ect.).
IIRC there are 10 hardware signatures XP looks at, and if more than 3
have changed
it forces you too reactive. Is this new policy only going to allow me to
change 6 peices of
hardware on my system before it demands I buy a new license?
Does Microsoft think I’m going to buy a new license for what I consider
to be the same machine just because I replaced some peripherals?
m.
Roddy, Mark wrote:
Just to pile on, the more I learn about this the worse it gets. The
Vista Eula restricts its use to one device with a one time right to
transfer to a second device. This is a major change from XP licensing
terms, which also had the one device restriction but intentionally or
not allowed unlimited transfers from one machine to another. Note that
this restriction applies to an upgrade that results in a reactivation.
My development system has been running the same licensed version of XP
through three complete overhauls, how about yours?-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Mark S. Edwards
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:26 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re: [ntdev] VISTA and VMWinHEC is now a dim memory but I seem to recall that when they
announced that virtualisation would be free they also announced that
the o/s licence would include what they called the “one plus one”
model. Allowing one copy of the licensed o/s to run as a guest.The variation in EULA regarding different versions of Vista seems
arbitrary but also no doubt deemed by the marketing guys to be a
wonderful opportunity for up-sell to a version supporting
virtualisation.I don’t recall anyone mentioning DRM at time but I suppose it is
logical that the lawyers have caused it to be added to the EULA. The
DRM guys live in their own magical universe of unreality, anyway.Mark.
At 09:52 PM 10/16/2006, Tim Roberts wrote:
>xxxxx@osr.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>I’ve seen the scare-mongering on various web sites but I don’t see
>>
>>
>the prohibition you mention anywhere in the license. The only
>reference to virtualization that I see is:
>
>
>>
>>>USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the
>>>
>>>
>>software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or
>>otherwise emulated) hardware system.
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>While I haven’t checked with our lawyers, or contacted anybody in
>>
>>
>MS licensing, to ME (personal opinion) this means that you need to
>run A SEPARATELY LICENSED INSTANCE OF VISTA in your VM.
>
>
>I think you are reading too much into it. Even if I have 5 licenses on
>one computer, it looks to me like that clause prevents me from
>installing ANY of them in a virtual environment.
>
>
>
>>You can’t use “the software installed on the licensed device”
>>
>>
>(that is THE SAME SOFTWARE) “on a virtual… system.”
>
>
>>
>>
>The “licensed device” is the physical machine on which Vista is
>running. How can I possibly get a copy of Vista running in a virtual
>system without installing it on the machine where it will be licensed?
>No, I think Mark is correct. That clause absolutely prohibits Vista in
>a VM.
>
>However, that clause is only in the Vista Home EULAs. The Business and
>Ultimate EULAs have language that DOES allow virtualization, as long as
>you don’t try to do DRM stuff.
>
>
>
>>Absent such info, that’s my reading…
>>
>>
>>
>Me, too. I ain’t no lawyer.
>
>–
>Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
>Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>
>—
>Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
>http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
>To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
>http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
>
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Hi Guys. Wouldn’t it be true that MS is essentially a monopoly supplier of
operating systems in the US so they would not be able to defend any
ludicrous licensing restrictions? (==Abuse of a monopoly position). Provided
you’ve bought it and use it on one machine at a time in a reasonable way,
isn’t all the rest make-work for the lawyers?
----- Original Message -----
From: Roddy, Mark
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: RE: [ntdev] VISTA and VM
Just to pile on, the more I learn about this the worse it gets. The
Vista Eula restricts its use to one device with a one time right to
transfer to a second device. This is a major change from XP licensing
terms, which also had the one device restriction but intentionally or
not allowed unlimited transfers from one machine to another. Note that
this restriction applies to an upgrade that results in a reactivation.
My development system has been running the same licensed version of XP
through three complete overhauls, how about yours?
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Mark S. Edwards
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:26 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re: [ntdev] VISTA and VM
WinHEC is now a dim memory but I seem to recall that when they
announced that virtualisation would be free they also announced that
the o/s licence would include what they called the “one plus one”
model. Allowing one copy of the licensed o/s to run as a guest.
The variation in EULA regarding different versions of Vista seems
arbitrary but also no doubt deemed by the marketing guys to be a
wonderful opportunity for up-sell to a version supporting
virtualisation.
I don’t recall anyone mentioning DRM at time but I suppose it is
logical that the lawyers have caused it to be added to the EULA. The
DRM guys live in their own magical universe of unreality, anyway.
Mark.
At 09:52 PM 10/16/2006, Tim Roberts wrote:
xxxxx@osr.com wrote:
>I’ve seen the scare-mongering on various web sites but I don’t see
the prohibition you mention anywhere in the license. The only
reference to virtualization that I see is:
>
>
> >USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the
> software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or
> otherwise emulated) hardware system.
> >
>
>While I haven’t checked with our lawyers, or contacted anybody in
MS licensing, to ME (personal opinion) this means that you need to
run A SEPARATELY LICENSED INSTANCE OF VISTA in your VM.
>I think you are reading too much into it. Even if I have 5 licenses on
one computer, it looks to me like that clause prevents me from
installing ANY of them in a virtual environment.>You can’t use “the software installed on the licensed device”
(that is THE SAME SOFTWARE) “on a virtual… system.”
>
>The “licensed device” is the physical machine on which Vista is
running. How can I possibly get a copy of Vista running in a virtual
system without installing it on the machine where it will be licensed?
No, I think Mark is correct. That clause absolutely prohibits Vista in
a VM.However, that clause is only in the Vista Home EULAs. The Business and
Ultimate EULAs have language that DOES allow virtualization, as long as
you don’t try to do DRM stuff.>Absent such info, that’s my reading…
>Me, too. I ain’t no lawyer.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
MM wrote:
I’ve read some about this, but something doesn’t make sense too me…
In XP if you make enough
hardware changes you must re-activate (new hard drive, replacing a
nic, increasing ram, ect.).IIRC there are 10 hardware signatures XP looks at, and if more than 3
have changed
it forces you too reactive. Is this new policy only going to allow me
to change 6 peices of
hardware on my system before it demands I buy a new license?Does Microsoft think I’m going to buy a new license for what I consider
to be the same machine just because I replaced some peripherals?
There is as of yet no evidence that they will ENFORCE this restriction.
Only that you have to feel guilty when you violate it. I can deal with
that.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Mike Kemp wrote:
Hi Guys. Wouldn’t it be true that MS is essentially a monopoly
supplier of operating systems in the US so they would not be able to
defend any ludicrous licensing restrictions? (==Abuse of a monopoly
position). Provided you’ve bought it and use it on one machine at a
time in a reasonable way, isn’t all the rest make-work for the lawyers?
Microsoft has been ACCUSED of being a monopoly. Although one court did
agree with that accusation, the finding was overturned by an appeals
court. The Bush administration, always a friend to corporations, has
agreed not to pursue it. Thus, it is the official position of the
United States of America that Microsoft is not a monopoly, despite
owning a 97% market share in desktops.
Even if they were, the restrictions on such a monopoly are mostly
related to what they can do to their competition. They do not
particularly restrict what they can do to their customers.
Further, I think you would be hard-pressed to demonstrate to a
non-technical jury that these licensing restrictions are “ludicrous”.
Can’t you see the arguments now? “If you have a new computer, then you
need a new operating system and you need a new license. If the disk
don’t fit, then you must acquit.”
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
I don’t think that there is anything remotely illegal (in the United
States, at least) or even unprecedented (when software other than
Windows is considered - HASPS, software that must be uninstalled to
before it can be reinstalled (old software used to do this))about this
policy; it is just unreasonable and complete pain in the ass. Speaking
of DRM, DivX, for example, can work this way with standalone DVD
recorders. Personally, I think that the appearance (at least) of
providing a secure, accountable platform for DRM is the primary impetus
behind this, because it seems to me that there has to be very cognet
financial interest driving a policy this explicitly crippling (to some),
and Vista has certainly demonstrated willingness to impose such
draconian measures for DRM; i. e. - all drivers in the DRM/Video path
must be signed (or something like that).
mm
>> xxxxx@sintefex.com 2006-10-17 11:27 >>>
Hi Guys. Wouldn’t it be true that MS is essentially a monopoly supplier
of
operating systems in the US so they would not be able to defend any
ludicrous licensing restrictions? (==Abuse of a monopoly position).
Provided
you’ve bought it and use it on one machine at a time in a reasonable
way,
isn’t all the rest make-work for the lawyers?
----- Original Message -----
From: Roddy, Mark
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: RE: [ntdev] VISTA and VM
Just to pile on, the more I learn about this the worse it gets. The
Vista Eula restricts its use to one device with a one time right to
transfer to a second device. This is a major change from XP licensing
terms, which also had the one device restriction but intentionally or
not allowed unlimited transfers from one machine to another. Note that
this restriction applies to an upgrade that results in a reactivation.
My development system has been running the same licensed version of XP
through three complete overhauls, how about yours?
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Mark S. Edwards
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:26 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re: [ntdev] VISTA and VM
WinHEC is now a dim memory but I seem to recall that when they
announced that virtualisation would be free they also announced that
the o/s licence would include what they called the “one plus one”
model. Allowing one copy of the licensed o/s to run as a guest.
The variation in EULA regarding different versions of Vista seems
arbitrary but also no doubt deemed by the marketing guys to be a
wonderful opportunity for up-sell to a version supporting
virtualisation.
I don’t recall anyone mentioning DRM at time but I suppose it is
logical that the lawyers have caused it to be added to the EULA. The
DRM guys live in their own magical universe of unreality, anyway.
Mark.
At 09:52 PM 10/16/2006, Tim Roberts wrote:
xxxxx@osr.com wrote:
>I’ve seen the scare-mongering on various web sites but I don’t see
the prohibition you mention anywhere in the license. The only
reference to virtualization that I see is:
>
>
> >USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the
> software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or
> otherwise emulated) hardware system.
> >
>
>While I haven’t checked with our lawyers, or contacted anybody in
MS licensing, to ME (personal opinion) this means that you need to
run A SEPARATELY LICENSED INSTANCE OF VISTA in your VM.
>I think you are reading too much into it. Even if I have 5 licenses
on
one computer, it looks to me like that clause prevents me from
installing ANY of them in a virtual environment.>You can’t use “the software installed on the licensed device”
(that is THE SAME SOFTWARE) “on a virtual… system.”
>
>The “licensed device” is the physical machine on which Vista is
running. How can I possibly get a copy of Vista running in a virtual
system without installing it on the machine where it will be
licensed?
No, I think Mark is correct. That clause absolutely prohibits Vista
in
a VM.However, that clause is only in the Vista Home EULAs. The Business
and
Ultimate EULAs have language that DOES allow virtualization, as long
as
you don’t try to do DRM stuff.>Absent such info, that’s my reading…
>Me, too. I ain’t no lawyer.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Enforcement will be automatic through activation.
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Tim Roberts
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:23 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re: [ntdev] VISTA and VM
MM wrote:
I’ve read some about this, but something doesn’t make sense too me…
In XP if you make enough
hardware changes you must re-activate (new hard drive, replacing a
nic, increasing ram, ect.).IIRC there are 10 hardware signatures XP looks at, and if more than 3
have changed
it forces you too reactive. Is this new policy only going to allow me
to change 6 peices of
hardware on my system before it demands I buy a new license?Does Microsoft think I’m going to buy a new license for what I
consider
to be the same machine just because I replaced some peripherals?
There is as of yet no evidence that they will ENFORCE this restriction.
Only that you have to feel guilty when you violate it. I can deal with
that.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Paul Thurrot has been writing on this
“Licensing changes to Windows
Vista”: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp
At 03:19 PM 10/17/2006, MM wrote:
I’ve read some about this, but something doesn’t make sense too
me… In XP if you make enough
hardware changes you must re-activate (new hard drive, replacing a
nic, increasing ram, ect.).IIRC there are 10 hardware signatures XP looks at, and if more than
3 have changed
it forces you too reactive. Is this new policy only going to allow
me to change 6 peices of
hardware on my system before it demands I buy a new license?Does Microsoft think I’m going to buy a new license for what I consider
to be the same machine just because I replaced some peripherals?m.
Roddy, Mark wrote:
>Just to pile on, the more I learn about this the worse it gets. The
>Vista Eula restricts its use to one device with a one time right to
>transfer to a second device. This is a major change from XP licensing
>terms, which also had the one device restriction but intentionally or
>not allowed unlimited transfers from one machine to another. Note that
>this restriction applies to an upgrade that results in a reactivation.
>My development system has been running the same licensed version of XP
>through three complete overhauls, how about yours?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Mark S. Edwards
>Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:26 PM
>To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
>Subject: Re: [ntdev] VISTA and VM
>
>
>WinHEC is now a dim memory but I seem to recall that when they
>announced that virtualisation would be free they also announced that
>the o/s licence would include what they called the “one plus one”
>model. Allowing one copy of the licensed o/s to run as a guest.
>
>The variation in EULA regarding different versions of Vista seems
>arbitrary but also no doubt deemed by the marketing guys to be a
>wonderful opportunity for up-sell to a version supporting
>virtualisation.
>
>I don’t recall anyone mentioning DRM at time but I suppose it is
>logical that the lawyers have caused it to be added to the EULA. The
>DRM guys live in their own magical universe of unreality, anyway.
>
>Mark.
>
>
>At 09:52 PM 10/16/2006, Tim Roberts wrote:
>
>
>>xxxxx@osr.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I’ve seen the scare-mongering on various web sites but I don’t see
>>>
>>the prohibition you mention anywhere in the license. The only
>>reference to virtualization that I see is:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the
>>>>
>>>software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or
>>>otherwise emulated) hardware system.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>While I haven’t checked with our lawyers, or contacted anybody in
>>>
>>MS licensing, to ME (personal opinion) this means that you need to
>>run A SEPARATELY LICENSED INSTANCE OF VISTA in your VM.
>>
>>
>>I think you are reading too much into it. Even if I have 5 licenses on
>>one computer, it looks to me like that clause prevents me from
>>installing ANY of them in a virtual environment.
>>
>>
>>
>>>You can’t use “the software installed on the licensed device”
>>>
>>(that is THE SAME SOFTWARE) “on a virtual… system.”
>>
>>
>>>
>>The “licensed device” is the physical machine on which Vista is
>>running. How can I possibly get a copy of Vista running in a virtual
>>system without installing it on the machine where it will be licensed?
>>No, I think Mark is correct. That clause absolutely prohibits Vista in
>>a VM.
>>
>>However, that clause is only in the Vista Home EULAs. The Business and
>>Ultimate EULAs have language that DOES allow virtualization, as long as
>>you don’t try to do DRM stuff.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Absent such info, that’s my reading…
>>>
>>>
>>Me, too. I ain’t no lawyer.
>>
>>–
>>Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
>>Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>>
>>
>>—
>>Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
>>http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>>
>>To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
>>http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>>
>
>
>—
>Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
>http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
>To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
>http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
>—
>Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
>http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
>To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
>http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
>
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
> ----------
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com[SMTP:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] on behalf of Mark S. Edwards[SMTP:xxxxx@muttsnuts.com]
Reply To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:50 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re: [ntdev] VISTA and VMPaul Thurrot has been writing on this
“Licensing changes to Windows
Vista”: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp
Thanks. Nice article :-/ It is great to know the licensing/activation nonsense doesn’t affects vast majority of users. Especially when we don’t fall to this category. I see good reasons to run Vista Home Basic inside a VM, for example (testing, problems reproducible with this version only etc.). So we have to follow the advice to violate Vista EULA. Great.
Best regards,
Michal Vodicka
UPEK, Inc.
[xxxxx@upek.com, http://www.upek.com]
As one response to the Thurrot article noted, 5% of the 1,000,000,000
installed windows pcs is not exactly a small number.
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Michal Vodicka
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:18 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE: [ntdev] VISTA and VM
From:
xxxxx@lists.osr.com[SMTP:xxxxx@lists.osr.com
] on behalf of Mark S. Edwards[SMTP:xxxxx@muttsnuts.com]
Reply To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:50 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re: [ntdev] VISTA and VMPaul Thurrot has been writing on this
“Licensing changes to Windows
Vista”: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp
Thanks. Nice article :-/ It is great to know the licensing/activation
nonsense doesn’t affects vast majority of users. Especially when we
don’t fall to this category. I see good reasons to run Vista Home Basic
inside a VM, for example (testing, problems reproducible with this
version only etc.). So we have to follow the advice to violate Vista
EULA. Great.
Best regards,
Michal Vodicka
UPEK, Inc.
[xxxxx@upek.com, http://www.upek.com]
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer