XP License / Virtual PC 2004

Having created an XP VM on MS virtual PC 2004 using my laptop license
key, I am reaching the time to register XP, question is: what should I
do? go ahead and register it (although is already register when first
installed on my laptop c drive) ? If I do so, am I violating any license
agreement and, is that registration counting as a new installation, thus
consuming one of the 'lives' the XP licensing system gives you?

I wasn't able to find clear info about it, can somebody help me out on this?
Thanks in advance,

Juan Calcagno

 

For each installed OS you need a license. So you are not allowed to use the
laptoplicense for your VPC-image.By the way, don't worry about the lives of
your XP-license. It is just a way to minimize the change that you use your
license on more than 1 pc. If you have used them all, just call MS and they
will give you a new validation. But ofcourse .... only if it's legal (e.g.
install xp because you bought a new hd).

 

Thank you very much, by the way, not that I am worried about not being
able to re-enable my xp copy, it's just that I am too lazy to wait on
the phone...
Anyways, and not that this is your fault, but geezz man, one extra
license for a stupid virtualpc image, these guys couldn't be greediest....

 

A Virtual PC is regarded in just the same way as a physical PC as regards
licensing. So on my PC I have Windows XP and then I have multiple VMs of
other operating systems - I need licenses for all these VM even when
shutdown as this is just like a PC being turned off - if you have an OS on
it it needs to be licensed.

As to regards "one extra license for a stupid virtualpc image" If you are a
volume licensing customer you may install Windows XP to your PC and then to
ONE VM running on that PC.
However this does not apply to retail or OEM products.


--

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 didn't know that. You actually read the EULA? Not that it's a solution for
me. I have a MSDN subscription, so I'm allowed to download and activate 10
copies of each MS OS, and that is just enough for me

 

microsoft.public.virtualpc news group, Leo Koolsbergen <[email protected]
mail.invalid> says...

This has been covered _numerous_ times in this news group in the past.
It isn't described in the EULA, it is described in a the VM licensing
white paper which can be found on the Microsoft web site.

--
Paul Adare
MVP - Windows - Virtual Machine
http://www.identit.ca/blogs/paul/
"The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has
survived for centuries without smileys. Only the new crop of modern
computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not clearly
labeled as such."
Ray Shea

 

In message <> Paul Adare

Which is exactly where there is some contention here -- I didn't agree
to the whitepaper before purchasing the product, ergo it is not binding.

 

in the microsoft.public.virtualpc news group, DevilsPGD

There is no contention at all. If you don't agree with what is in the
white paper that's your choice. The EULA is more restrictive than what
is in the white paper so if you're a VL customer and you choose not to
follow what is in the white paper you'll wind up purchasing more
licenses than you actually need.
I fail to see the problem here.

--
Paul Adare
MVP - Windows - Virtual Machine
http://www.identit.ca/blogs/paul/
"The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has
survived for centuries without smileys. Only the new crop of modern
computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not clearly
labeled as such."
Ray Shea

 

Since this has become something of a running discussion on VPC+OS licenses, I
thought I would throw my two cents in regarding the EULA.

I suspect that if MS ever had the bad sense to persue this in court or the
back luck to persue it in court, they would get their clocks cleaned.

Since it is code that MS has licensed to run on that machine, and it is
running on that machine, I think the courts would likely not see the fine
line in the sand MS is trying to draw here. Further, I think it actually
hurts MS to TRY to draw this line in the sand. I can see arguing against
DIFFERENT versions of the OS (can't run XP under yer W2K/98 license), but I
don't think a judge will see it Microsoft's way.

Heck, it is even running on the SAME core processor, so it doesn't even
touch the # of cores that the OS is licensed to run under, and XP already
virtualizes itself to a degree, VPC would likely be viewed as an ultimate
extension of that concept.

Ultimately if it ends up in court, I'm betting you'll see the license
changing in a hurry.

However, yes, until then, it will definitely cause activation problems, and
be a pain in the a**. Fortunately for me, I also use MSDN, and I have more
seats than I can physically use.

Note, if you are just TESTING an application, follow MS's advice and do not
activate the machine - install it, test the app, and dispose the vpc before
XP expires. (Otherwise MS would probably be flooded with calls from annoyed
MSDN subscribers who felt they were tricked into burning their XP activations
with VPC for testing).

 

Bear with me for a moment: Same machine, same processor , same memory,
same disk partition, same OS ....and you have to pay one extra licence
for each vm of the same OS you already have ? It only makes sense to the
mind of a greedy entity....

The reason why I call it a "stupid vm license" is because I do not and I
will not use VPC in production, mostly we are all developers here.

Man, this licensing system thing suck so much.

Anyways, thanks for the information, certainly I didn't know about what
you pointed out.

 

I couldn't agree with you more...
Please, do not get me wrong, I am not an advocate of the open source,
it's just that licensing has got to make sense. And this is not the case
indeed.

 

Not at all - all my VMs are on a external hard that I use on multiple
machines - How would you license that ?
Also I have mutiple operating systems as VMs (including other desktop and
also Server OS's) - How would you license those ?

Keeping it simple makes the most sense - a Virtual Machine Image is regarded
as a PC so there is no confusion.
So as developers you may have used multiple machines in the past - did you
not license these correctly ?
Also many developers have MSDN licenses which give them greater number of
licenses for use in dev and test environments.

--

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

 

You are entirely missing the point here, let me explain if possible:

I never talked about the case you expose here , if you recall I am
talking about using the SAME OS license key for a VM as its hosting OS,
my point is not about transporting VM to other computers

Same as previous paragraph, I am not talking about an OS different than
the one already installed as the host OS.

did you not license these correctly ?

Sure, but I never paid twice for the same license, it should eb at that
point as having independent different desktops, and the software should
be able to recognize that situation allowing you to continue.

number of licenses for use in dev and test environments.

Sure, MSDN is a great thing for developers, except that not any
developer can pay for it, even small companies are reluctant to spend
yearly the $2500 per seat of a universal subscription. So the MSDN
option is not something that can be happily presented as a solution that
fits everyone.

And besides, it's not that all developers will need dozens of VM's; just
look at me, I only need one of them to take a look at VS2005 beta, which
btw, took about 14+ hours to install on a VM on a P4 2GHZ 512RAM laptop
system.

 

My point was that licensing a VM like another physical PC save any and all
confusions about the licensing model. It removes the need for exceptions
etc.

Alos let be just point out one other thing.
The EULA for Windows XP Professional actually forbids this

1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights
provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of
this EULA:

* Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Product on a single
computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
("Workstation Computer")

The important part is that you can only "run one copy of the Product on a
single computer" so the EULA already makes this clear - irrespective of
arguments about it being on the same PC.
You are using more then one copy of Windows and thus you should buy more
then one license.


--

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

 

In regards to

A judge could interpret that as long as you don't run the same licensed
copy in 2 different machines at the same time, you are not breaching the
EULA. It would be a matter of discussion, which rights are being
affected, blah blah blah, I'm sure.

 

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:21:11 +0100, "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]"

.... snip ...

XP supports multiple boots of itself and allows them to be run on
different virtual partitions, so that arguement is moot as long as you
are running on the same hardware. It is the XP contract that allows
this. But let's suppose that were not the case.

The MS scheme for preventing piracy does not take VPC into account,
which it could do if there was a way to tell the host is already
running XP. If there were, there would be no issue to begin with. As
long as the underlying host is XP, it is just another install of XP on
the same hardware; something I can do as much as I want. Further,
there is no time when I am running more than one copy.

Even if you take the VM to a different XP machine, it is just another
install of XP on hardware already licensed to install XP, a non-issue
no matter how you look at it. I am entitled to install a copy of XP as
many times as I want on the same hardware if I have a license to use
XP on that hardware. I don't have to use the same CD or run the same
apps on each install. I just need to have a license for that hardware.

But you want to argue that the virtual machine is a different machine.

If you look at the virtual machine as a different machine, then you
have to look at the time spent there as different from the time spent
on the host machine. Even though they flip back and forth, they are
then completely different machines incapable of existing at the same
time. There is no way the software could possibly be installed on both
of them at the same time; it is virtually impossible. In that case, it
must be an install of XP on one machine at one time and on a different
machine at another time, entirely proper. They never run in the same
time line. The licensed copy of XP is never installed on two machines
at the same time.

Either you have XP installed twice on the same machine or XP installed
on two different machines that do not (cannot) exist at the same time.

Microsoft's choosing not to eliminate this VPC issue by a feature is
understandable, but refusing all accomodation of customers who not
only purchase XP but also purchase a Microsoft product (VPC) to use
with it, may not be reverse piracy, but it is not customer friendly.
It is not good for those of us with MSDN to ignore it just because it
does not effect us. If it does not reflect well on Microsoft, it does
not reflect well on us to not seek a better resolution.

 

microsoft.public.virtualpc news group, Leo Bellew

This isn't the case, you are mistaken here. First of all, there is no
such thing as a "virtual partition". Secondly, you should read the EULA:

1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer,
such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation
Computer")

This section specifically states that you are only allowed to install a
single copy on a workstation. Installing multiple copies on the same
computer with only a single license is a violation of this section of
the EULA, therefore your whole argument is wrong since it is based on
your mistaken belief that the EULA grants you the ability to install as
many copies as you like on a single computer.

This doesn't make any sense. What "MS scheme" to prevent piracy are you
talking about? If you're talking about Windows Product Activation, then
you aren't aware that activation and licensing are two separate things
and are not related to one another. You could install Windows XP on 50
computers with 50 completely different hardware configurations and not
bother to activate any of them. They would run correctly until the grace
period for activation was up. However, if you only had a single license,
even though you had not activated them, you'd be in violation of the
license agreement as soon as you had installed the second copy.

See my first point above. Your basic assumption about licensing is
wrong.

That is only one aspect of the pertinent section in the EULA. You're
conveniently skipping the part of the clause that limits you to a single
install per computer. Again, a basic flaw in your premise.

You really don't understand how licensing works. You are not licensed
for a particular set of hardware. You're once again confusing WPA with
licensing.

As above, no, you are not.

Again, no you are not.

No argument, fact.

This makes zero sense. How are you going to run a virtual machine of the
host operating system is not also running. In any case, this is a straw
man as the minute you install a second copy of XP into the virtual
machine you're in violation of the EULA if you only have a single
license. That license is consumed by the host.

Do you know how Virtual PC works?

As Mike has stated several times in this thread, a Virtual PC is treated
the same way as a physical PC as far as licensing goes. If you are a VL
customer, some additional allowances are made for virtual machines, and
note that those allowances apply to _any_ virtual machine technology and
not just VPC or VS.

Your entire post here shows that you really don't understand how OS
licensing works and you're obviously confused about the differences
between licensing and activation.


--
Paul Adare
MVP - Windows - Virtual Machine
http://www.identit.ca/blogs/paul/
"The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has
survived for centuries without smileys. Only the new crop of modern
computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not clearly
labeled as such."
Ray Shea

 

.... snip ...

I actually have installed additional instances of XP on other
"virtual partitions" using that feature of XP without using any other
software. It comes with XP, and it works and it is legal. Do you
suppose Microsoft provided a feature the license won't let you use?

Yes and that one copy can be installed on different computers at
different times as long as it is only installed on one computer at any
one time. The fact is, we can do as many installs as we want.

We were talking about the case where XP is both host and guest OS.

You say the VPC is another computer. I don't dispute that. What I say
is that the copy installed on the real computer and the copy installed
on the VPC computer never exist at the same time. So there is never
more than one copy installed at the same time.

So, under the EULA, we can use one copy of XP on both the real
computer and the VPC computer because they never exist at the same
time. Only the Microsoft anti-piracy setup prevents that valid use.

I can understand that Microsoft needs to prevent piracy, but taking it
to this level, acting against your customers, well, I think people are
justified in feeling hurt by that, even though I personally am not
effected by it because of my MSDN subscription.

I never said we can install as many copies as we like. What I said was
that we can do as many installs as we like, and that is true as long
as we have only one copy at any one time installed. That was my point.

.... snip ...

Here are the judgmental phrases you used against me in the rest of
your reply:

I think you should apologize.

 

microsoft.public.virtualpc news group, Leo Bellew

Perhaps you should explain what you mean by "virtual partition". There
is no feature in XP with that name. Regardless of what feature you're
actually referring to here, you do not have a license to install
multiple copies of XP to the same computer.

That isn't what you said originally. You said that you'd installed
multiple copies on the same computer, which is a violation of the EULA.

Which requires two licenses.

Of course they exist at the same time. How could they not? They're both
installed, therefore you need two licenses.

Sorry, but I really don't think you understand how VPC works. You need a
host operating system to be running (1 license) in order to install and
run VPC, then you install another copy of XP into a virtual machine (2nd
license). Please explain to me how you can run the copy installed in VPC
without also running the host copy? As I've already pointed out here,
even if you've got the virtual machine turned off, and the host computer
turned off, you've installed XP twice, which means you need two
licenses. Period. This has nothing to do with "the Microsoft anti-piracy
setup" (I don't know what the means anyway).

These are peer support groups, they aren't my customers, I don't work
for Microsoft.

And in the case of a virtual machine you have at least two copies
installed. The host OS, installed on the physical computer, and the copy
installed in the virtual machine. That requires two licenses. I don't
know how much clearer I can make this.



--
Paul Adare
MVP - Windows - Virtual Machine
http://www.identit.ca/blogs/paul/
"The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has
survived for centuries without smileys. Only the new crop of modern
computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not clearly
labeled as such."
Ray Shea

 

Hi Leo,

Could you please explain, or point us in the direction of information
on how to do what you describe above. I am confused as I can find
nothing relating to "virtual partitions" in the XP documentation.