Akemi Yagi wrote:
On 4/26/07, Sean Brown <sbrown.home@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> And AFAIK MS license agreement requires a separate licensing for
> Windows to be used under any competitive virtual machine, but not
> for their own VM (Virtual PC). Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly.
> _______________________________________________
No it doesn't.
Where is the source of this information???
OK, this is what I remembered in general as a home user. I checked it on
the web, and I found the following. This is from a pro-Windows site, but
the conclusion is still the same.
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp
"Virtualization licensing
One final area that's come under a lot of scrutiny--and, as it turns
out, misguided interpretations--regards virtualization. With Windows
Vista, Microsoft is finally addressing virtualization in the EULA. And
it goes something like this:
Any version of Windows Vista can host virtual machines (VMs), whether in
Microsoft's Virtual PC solution or a rival product like VMWare
Workstation. However, only two retail version of Windows Vista are
licensed for use as a guest OS in a VM: Windows Vista Business and
Ultimate. (A third--non-retail--Vista version, Vista Enterprise, has
different licensing terms, which I'll address in a bit.)
Let that one sink in for a second. You cannot install Windows Vista Home
Basic or Home Premium in a virtual machine, at least from a legal
standpoint. (There is nothing technical preventing you from doing so, of
course.) And on a related note, each retail copy of Vista you purchase
is only licensable for one install. If you install a copy of Windows
Vista in a virtual machine and then activate it, you cannot install the
same copy of Vista on a physical machine and reactivate it (unless you
take advantage of the transfer rights mentioned above, of course). One
license equals one installation.
So why "restrict" users like that? Well, as it turns out, there's no
massive conspiracy. Currently, the majority of Microsoft's
virtualization users fall into exactly two groups: business customers
and enthusiasts. Business customers will want Vista Business and
enthusiasts will use Vista Ultimate. Simple. And though pundits might
like to complain about this apparently arbitrary decision, the reality
is that very, very few people can ever come up with a legitimate reason
to run, say, Vista Home Basic in a VM. And those that want to, can, if
they don't mind violating the Vista EULA and not receiving support.
Windows Vista Enterprise is a special case. With that version of Vista,
which will be made available only to volume license customers, users
will be able to install a single licensed copy of Vista on one physical
PC and up to four VMs, simultaneously. Those four VMs, however, must all
be installed on the same Vista Enterprise-based PC, and they must be
used by the same user. "If customers need multiple virtual machines they
should use Vista Enterprise," Microsoft's Scott Woodgate told me. "The
intention is to be generous and enable whatever scenarios are customers
may need." Sounds like a customer benefit to me."
Conclusion: "You cannot install Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium
in a virtual machine, at least from a legal standpoint".
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
