OS Licenses

if I install an XP OS in a virtual machine,assuming that the computer already
have a licensed XP Pro OS, do I have to buy a second license? and if yes,
could this license be an OEM license?

 

Read the _many_ postings already in the newsgroup on this
exact subject.

Short answer: Yes. No.

Scott

 

Hi,

Yes, you need a separate license. This license can be OEM as long as it
isn't the same license as the host computer. Also, an OEM license can't be
transferred, so you can't delete the first machine and use the OEM install
on a second virtual machine, as per the license

--
--Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server - IIS, Virtual PC]
http://www.visualwin.com - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
tutorial site
http://vpc.visualwin.com - Does <insert OS name> work on VPC 2004? Find out
here
Only reply by newsgroup. I do not do technical support via email. Any
emails I have not authorized are deleted before I see them.

 

-----Original Message-----

Actuallly Scott - yes and yes.

The poster does require a valid license for each VM they build. So would
require the second Windows XP license assuming they are not a volume
licensed customer; If they can use an OEM license for this - They would be
subject to the one time use license in that if that eve deleted the VM the
OEM license is gone forever.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

 

I disagree -- An OEM license allows you to format the machine and
reinstall, or to replace the hard drive at your discretion.

 

Yes - but it is tied to the original machine you installed it on, by
motherboard. Once you delete a virtual machine, you're throwing the machine
away, and when you create a new one, you have a brand new computer. It's
not really a question on whether you agree or not, it's simply the way the
license works

See Mike's post to confirm my original fear.

--
--Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server - IIS, Virtual PC]
http://www.visualwin.com - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
tutorial site
http://vpc.visualwin.com - Does <insert OS name> work on VPC 2004? Find out
here
Only reply by newsgroup. I do not do technical support via email. Any
emails I have not authorized are deleted before I see them.

 

?????

So, in your opinion, if I have an OEM Windows license on a physical
computer, and I wipe the hard disk, I must then acquire a new OEM license if
I want to re-install the OS onto the wiped drive? (Wiping the hard disk is
equivalent to throwing away or reformatting the .vhd file) It is not a new
computer; it is a new copy of the data on the same storage media.

I'm sorry, but if I've understood your position correctly, I think it is
seriously over aggressive, and will essentially prove to be indefensible.
Any yes, it is a matter of whether we agree or not; courts decide
discrepancies in such issues, not Microsoft unilaterally.

 

No, deleting the virtual machine is the same as throwing away a machine.
Creating a virtual machine is building a brand new computer. Not the same as
replacing a hard drive in a real physical machine, hence it doesn't play out
the way you think.

In either case, the OEM licence restrictions are no help for virtual
machines, indeed for virtual machines they are a bit silly and over
restrictive, regardless of how they work on "real" machines its clear that
OEM licences are not terribly well suited for virtual machines.

--
--
Rob Moir, Microsoft MVP for servers & security
Website - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk
Virtual PC 2004 FAQ - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk/win/VirtualPC2004FAQ.html

Kazaa - Software update services for your Viruses and Spyware.

 

With all due respect, it think your position is still quite extreme. Again,
using the analogy of a physical machine (which at one time Microsoft
supported as the natural method to think about licensing issues on virtual
as opposed to hardware machines), removing a once functional virtual machine
from an active list is no different from taking a physical machine out of a
currently functional status/inventory list after removing a power supply,
disk drive, or the video card from a physical machine, rendering it
inoperable and temporarily unfunctional.

If at some later point that machine is revived (new power supply, drive, or
replace the video card) I can still use the original OEM license on that
machine. (We're talking like about those same licenses that come now come
glued to the very case's box, right?) The newly revived virtual machine has
precisely the same hardware authorized on that original OEM list.

Alternately, by what you are suggesting, there would be different licensing
implications for not deleting the virtual machine from the list, but instead
just using a utility to reformat the .vhd!? What else, for just renaming
the virtual machine!?

Perhaps a user forum is not the place in which to discuss personal
interpretation of licensing issues -- I just cannot believe at this point
that your perspective accurately reflects Microsoft's legal licensing
opinions.

 

Mike Brannigan's post most accurately reflects the MS licence position, but
I'm sure he'll rush to point out that he's not (well as far as I know) a
lawyer. It's not my personal interpretation of the licence laws that matters
at all, Its Microsoft's position that matters, and should a dispute arise it
could be ultimately a judge's too. I don't enter into it. Its my opinion
that OEM licences are unsuitable for work with VMs because of this
confusion - in other words, whoever turns out to be right my recommendation
is to avoid the confusion in the first place.

I've certainly always considered separate virtual machines to be 2 different
computers for technical reasons, (e.g. the network card MAC address has to
change for a start), so if I've already accepted that two virtual machine
instances are two completely different machines for technical reasons then I
have no problem with seeing that apply consistently for all other issues
that arise.

If you stop using a virtual machine and put the files for it into "cold
storage" somewhere then you have not destroyed the "virtual machine", simply
done the electronic equivilant of putting a item of hardware into a storage
room. You haven't destroyed the virtual machine and hence haven't lost the
licence.

If you destroy the .vmc and .vhd file and set up a new machine, then as far
as i'm concerned that is technically a new machine. My own personal
interpretation is again a complete legal layperson's opinion and thus
useless but I'd say that its down to intent - are you intending to run one
copy of Windows on two virtual machines, or are you just rebuilding an image
over and over as part of a testing cycle? In my book the last option is fine
but the first is not.

As for "The newly revived virtual machine has precisely the same hardware
authorized on that original OEM list.", then the obvious answer would be
what if you phoned Dell and ordered 2 machines exactly the same from them.
Is that one computer or two? How many of those machines does the OEM licence
"allow" you to install one copy of Windows onto?

Maybe my position is too extreme but I'm not a lawyer settling a legal issue
of what you can and cannot do, I'm a techie trying to find a decent solution
to a problem... so we're back to my earlier comment about avoiding the
problem by not using OEM licences being the easiest thing to do. It might be
extreme, but its simple.

--
--
Rob Moir, Microsoft MVP for servers & security
Website - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk
Virtual PC 2004 FAQ - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk/win/VirtualPC2004FAQ.html

Kazaa - Software update services for your Viruses and Spyware.

 

This is an issue you should address directly to Microsoft's legal
department. I doubt that any opinion expressed here that did not reinforce
your own would be acceptible to you. Please get it from good authority.

 

Fair enough -- How about if I maintain the VMC file, and just delete or
reformat the VHD as required?

Of course, if we accept that definition (That the VMC file is "the
computer"), then if I mirror my VMC+VHD files to two or more physical
machines, do I now need two OEM licenses? If we accept that the "VMC"
file is the machine, then I would suggest not even though common sense
says that you would need another OEM license.

Another consideration, I purchased WinXP Pro with my laptop. I've had
the laptop swapped four times due to hardware defects, and am still
using my original OEM license. The instructions tell me to move my hard
drive to the new machine so that I don't have to reinstall my operating
system (Since the defects were not drive related)

Either this is legal, in which case it stands that an OEM license should
be reusable if you delete a VPC and start over (as long as the previous
VPC is no longer functional), or I have been advised to violate the
license terms by my laptop supplier, in which case I should notify
Microsoft that I was sold a pirated license and I should pursue a civil
lawsuit against my laptop supplier immediately for fraudulently selling
me an unlicensed copy of Windows XP.

The biggest reason I see this as being worthwhile discussing is that an
OEM license is the cheapest single license you can buy, so if it's
legitimate for use in a VPC, it's potentially a significant cost savings
for a single VPC user -- I know my dad is considering using VPC for
internet surfing to keep his PC clean (He still uses IE some of the
time, and doesn't always patch because he doesn't trust Microsoft)

 

Each instance of the OS, running or not, requires a separate license.

 

Hi,

Reformat, fine, delete, fine too.

Yep, if you have a retail license and copy the VM you need a second retail
license too. It's like buying 2 of the same HP model computers. Still need
2 licenses to have Windows on both.

Technically your distributor made a wrong decision. OEM installs are tied
to their original motherboards, so technically if you switched your laptop
(and hence your motherboard), you needed a different license

I'm not a lawyer and I'm definitely not a lawyer who works for Microsoft, so
I really can't say what should be.

Spending close to $200 to browse safe seems like a bit of a waste (~$130 for
VPC, ~$70 for the Windows license) when you can get free programs to keep
machines clean of spyware

--
--Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server - IIS, Virtual PC]
http://www.visualwin.com - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
tutorial site
http://vpc.visualwin.com - Does <insert OS name> work on VPC 2004? Find out
here
Only reply by newsgroup. I do not do technical support via email. Any
emails I have not authorized are deleted before I see them.

 

Actually that is not correct. You can freely create backups of the
original media, and/or an installed system.

Since you top posted and didn't trim it's not really clear which part of
my message you're responding to though...

 

Makes sense -- You're just swapping the hard drive, which doesn't cause
you to throw out the OEM license.

I would agree -- Common sense dictates that if you have a second
instance (and especially one on a second set of physical hardware), you
need a second license -- But I'm not convinced that deleting and
recreating a VMC would constitute a new machine.

If we accept that the "machine" is the VMC file, then regardless of
where that VMC file is located it's still valid to use it with a given
OEM license, isn't it?

If we don't accept that definition, then deleting and recreating the VMC
shouldn't invalidate an OEM license, it's no more then a reinstall.

My feeling is that the VMC is not what defines the specific machine (to
tie the OEM license to a set of hardware/specific machine)

I would suggest that the VMC file is not the determining factor, but
rather, that OEM licenses used for VPCs would be assigned to the
physical machine regardless of whether you delete the VMC+VHD and start
over. In other words, you would be within the license to stick
additional OEM stickers on the case beside the host's OEM sticker, and
use those OEM stickers as guests on that physical host reinstalling as
many times as you want, as long as you never have more VPCs then you
have stickers on the machine.

Am I making sense, or am I missing something obvious here?

So Microsoft requires you format and reinstall your OS because your
motherboard is defective? -- I would be very interested in seeing them
try to enforce that aspect of the license, especially since OEM licenses
can be sold with a hard drive or other system component without a
motherboard.

As far as I'm aware, Microsoft's only official position on changing OEM
keys is to reinstall, although I might be wrong about that.

It seems to be common place too, since I wrote my last post I emailed a
couple friends (One with a Dell laptop, one with a Gateway desktop),
both of whom confirmed they have had motherboards replaced without an
OEM license being reissued and without being instructed to reinstall.

I'm also curious -- If I build my own machine and the motherboard dies,
am I expected to purchase an additional OEM license to go with the
replacement (RMA'd) motherboard?

Unfortunately, I don't know of any alternatives (free or paid) which can
"guarantee" safety (plus a reasonable level of functionality),
especially if you choose (as my dad does) to not patch immediately.

I'm writing this post from ThunderBird and I've used
FireFox/Bird/Phoenix since the day it came out, and before that I ran
Mozilla nightlies, but I can think of more then one security-critical
patch within the last few months -- While I haven't personally had any
virus or piece of spyware sneak into any system under my control since
before Jan-2000, I am very conscious of the potential risks.

While I disagree with his choice to not patch, I've spent more then one
overnighter rebuilding a critical server or VP's workstation because a
patch broke some critical functionality (although admittedly not in over
a year, and mostly with NT4), so I can understand his reluctance to patch.

One thing my dad and I have in common: I don't believe in backing up a
computer. I backup my data, I backup my original install media, but I
don't generally backup an installed system -- It's usually more trouble
then it's worth to try to restore vs the time to rebuild the system.
The exception is mission critical servers, but even then, I'd rather
have a fallover system in place and rebuild properly.

 

Absolutely. We are thinking alike here.

I agree. Absolutely.

This is the crux of my point. It seems crystal clear to me that if the old
..vhd is discarded or reformatted, there is absolutely no reasonable
interpretation that justifies the newly attached/reformatted .vhd as now
requiring a new OS license. If whole machine is discarded (which of course
much include the deletion of the original .vhd and backups) and then a new
v-machine is generated, the end result is essentially identical -- you end
up in either case with a single, clean functional install of the original OS
license.

If it is Microsoft's position that deletion of a VM corresponds with the
total destruction of a physical machine, and is going to now require a
consumer end user to purchase a new Windows OS license to create a VM
because the old license is no longer valid for use (we're talking over $200
here), there is going to have to be a _much_, MUCH more significant warning
and safety sequence, with numerous warning dialog and confirm boxes to allow
removal of a VM, re-iterating that any Microsoft licensed OS software on the
virtual machine will no longer be valid for installation on any other
virtual machine, and the user will have to legally acquire a new OS license
for any replacement VMs. Not only would such warnings have to go into
Virtual PC and Virtual Server, but into all of VMware's solutions as well --
OS licensing requirements are of course no different for Microsoft's VMs
than others'.

Simply, this just makes no sense, when the end result is indistinguishable
from reformatting the .vhd, and deleting a VM is so trivially achieved.

On only one, of course. (And of course each machine purchased from Dell
would naturally already come with its own OEM licensed copy, but thats kind
of beside the point.) I'm not trying to say you can manage to somehow
create multiple-use licenses here, getting 2- or n-for-one. We are talking
about using a single valid license on a single (virtual) machine. We need
an independent license for each stored or active VM. Yes.

Sorry, but if this applies to an OEM license, I don't see why from precisely
the same perspective it wouldn't apply to a full license I would purchase as
an end user in order to run an extra virtual machine session on my personal
machine. Not everyone owns corporate licenses or MDSN subscriptions, and
not everyone uses their licensed VMs only in a testing/non-production
environment which is all that many Microsoft licenses explicitly allow.

 

That's true, but only if you're not running the backed up machine. As a
matter of fact, if you own one Windows XP license, and want to install it on
2 partitions/drives on the same machine, you will need a second license.

This is from the Server 2003 license, but applies to XP as well:
" a. Installation, Server Software. You may install only one
copy of Server Software on a single Server"..."An
additional license is required if you install another copy
of the Server Software on the same Server (whether in a
separate partition, by using server emulation software, or
otherwise) or to install or run a copy of the Server
Software on a different Server (for example, a Server
employed for backup or fail-over support)."

--
--Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server - IIS, Virtual PC]
http://www.visualwin.com - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
tutorial site
http://vpc.visualwin.com - Does <insert OS name> work on VPC 2004? Find out
here
Only reply by newsgroup. I do not do technical support via email. Any
emails I have not authorized are deleted before I see them.

 

Hi,

And we agree that a virtual machine = physical machine, yes?

Whether or not it's the VMC itself, I believe it is the principal that the
VMC stands for. In this case, the registered VMC counts as a machine. You
can run it. Without registering the VMC it, the machine won't run.

You're trashing the machine and creating a new one. Notice it's the "Create
a new virtual machine" wizard and not "Use the existing machine as a
platform to run other machine" wizard

The VMC does define it though. If you set a MAC address in your VMC, then
you "on-board" NIC gets that MAC. Same with any other computer settings set
in the VMC

Whoa - why's that? The hardware inside your VPC machine where you are and
mine where I am is exactly the same (well, if our host CPUs were the same),
so it's not fair to tie it to the originally installed host, especially
since I'm planning to upgrade my host soon.

That's correct.

There's always the much-underrated inplace upgrade

According to the license, I would guess so

VM browsing doesn't guaruntee safety either. If your dad gets Blaster in a
VM and isn't patched on the host, it's only a matter of seconds.

Every piece of software has its vulnerabilities.

Well, critical servers deserve testing of patches before applied in
production

Same here, but server deserve backing up. There are things deeper in
Windows than just files, the registry and other settings are important too

--
--Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server - IIS, Virtual PC]
http://www.visualwin.com - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
tutorial site
http://vpc.visualwin.com - Does <insert OS name> work on VPC 2004? Find out
here
Only reply by newsgroup. I do not do technical support via email. Any
emails I have not authorized are deleted before I see them.

 

While I would normally be loath to reply to my own post, after further
cogitation, I can at last at least begin to see your point of view,
particularly relating to the OEM version of the OS license.

From your perspective, once an OEM license is installed on a particular
serial number of platform, it cannot be moved, period. This is what keeps
the cost of an OEM license so low, and yes, it is more inconvenient than
many other license forms.

If you delete a VM, and then create a new one, the "serial number" of the
newly generated VM is different than the original, thus requiring a new
license iff an OEM license was used.

Even understanding this position, I would point out that in fact it is
entirely under Microsoft's control what "virtual serial number" is generated
for the replacement of a deleted virtual machine with Virtual PC or Virtual
Server, and that an equally valid choice would be to regenerate the
previously used and now eliminated serial number. Arbitrary selection of a
"different" machine would appear to be audaciously self-serving when the
result is to generate a license violation requiring further direct or
indirect payment to Microsoft.

But now that I better understand Microsoft's viewpoint, I'm glad to say that
the differences between us fall below my personal noise threshold. I'll
just be sure to only replace VHDs, and not to delete and regenerate VMs, or
I'll keep a copy of the VMC file around even if I delete it from the current
VM list, so I can legitimately reinstall my licensed OSes on the original
"serial number".