OSNews

I wonder how they define a VM. For instance there's a VM in the sense of VMWare or VirtualPC, then there's containers in Solaris which is I supose virtual but not really.

Obviously Windows Vista cannot run on Solaris, but an x86 open operating system with the concept of containers could perhaps circumvent this?

Maybe I should get a degree in law.

I'm wondering if this is true, since the ability to virtualize more versions of Windows was touted at TechEd... and the article that OSNews is pointing us to isn't citing a source.

If so, well, meh. This can only hurt them, and if they want to limit potential Windows sales, I'm sure nobody on this site will be complaining.

Edited 2007-06-20 20:41

Well, I'm one who uses virtualization to do Windows development. I use Parallels to run Windows XP under Linux. FOr now, it doesn't matter since I don't need to run Vista. But at some point I will and I would like to not have to buy the business version (price). I am sure Microsoft's answer is to buy MSDN. If I remember right, the versions of Vista (basic, etc) you download with an MSDN subscription CAN be run virtually. Unfortunately, that's more money I can't afford to spend.

There are no actual limitations in the software that prevent virtualization, it's just to be properly licensed you need to have Business or higher.

"But at some point I will and I would like to not have to buy the business version (price)."

You really should test on all available versions and editions of Windows.

"I am sure Microsoft's answer is to buy MSDN...Unfortunately, that's more money I can't afford to spend."

If you're doing any type of Windows development, an MSDN subscription should be built into your company's yearly budget...even if you're just a one man shop. It'll more than pay for itself in the long run. You can always use the trial versions of MS software (MS offers trial versions for all products in its portfolio) until then, which actually lend themselves very well to virtualization. Create baseline server images, and when the expiration is up, just go back to your baseline image and start over.

The restrictions on Vista Home in VMs has nothing to do with the quality of Vista, or MS in general. It may be a bad idea, but really, anybody running VMs is probably not going to run Home anyway, so what's the big deal.

If you weren't such an Anti-MS troll, you may figure out that it affects a very small percentage of users

"The restrictions on Vista Home in VMs has nothing to do with the quality of Vista, or MS in general."

Wrong! An OS with unnecessary restrictions and an obvious lack of quality should be considered defective, and alternative products should be considered.

"It may be a bad idea, but really, anybody running VMs is probably not going to run Home anyway, so what's the big deal."

People should be able to use software they purchase the way they want to use it, not be restricted by an abusive monopolist.

"If you weren't such an Anti-MS troll, you may figure out that it affects a very small percentage of users"

It does not matter that it affects a small percentage of users, abusive restrictions should not be tolerated. This is just another reason to avoid MS software.

Purely Eula

... For now, it's EULA only.
That, until Microsoft decides to quietly install a WGA-like tool that will disable your updates/features or even the OS itself due to EULA violation. (Or even falsely suspected ones [1])

- Gilboa
[1] http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070124-8690.html

Edited 2007-06-23 18:19

If you're a company then yes they may very well come knocking on your door and checking your PC. I know of several people who have worked for companies that have been raided by the BSA. If they find you're running Vista home under virtualization, against the license, it could end up costing you a fair chunk of change.

Wouldn't one need a court approval and thus some level of proof, before they raid?

I would think that any site license would allow them to perform audits every once in a while, but I haven't read the site license myself. Even in that case, MS would be bound by the terms of the licensing agreement in how far their investigations could go.

As to someone who just has a standard home-bought Windows EULA, yeah, you'd need to go through the courts.

"Wouldn't one need a court approval and thus some level of proof, before they raid?"

Yes, one would. Neither MS nor BSA is a law enforcement agency and thus cant enter your premises unless you allow them. If you refuse them access they need to get a court order and the cooperation of the police.

In most cases it seems to be enough with a tipoff from a disgruntled employee. Also many licenses stipulate that you give the BSA right to check your computers for license violations whenever they feel like it.

"In most cases it seems to be enough with a tipoff from a disgruntled employee."

To get a court order? Perhaps. To give MS/BSA the right to enter your premises against your wishes? No.

"Also many licenses stipulate that you give the BSA right to check your computers for license violations whenever they feel like it."

If such a stipulation is at all legally valid in a license. Even if it is, it's not a legal matter but a contract matter so if you say they can't come in they can't. It would be trespassing unless they had a court order ordering you to let them in.

Yes, the distinction which people always fail to make in these threads between contract law and criminal law.

It is not illegal to break a contract, eg by doing something which your EULA forbids. The contract may or may not be enforceable.

It is illegal to drive when having drunk too much. Or steal.

They are quite different. One can get you arrested. The other can get you sued for damages.

Maybe you do agree they can look at your computers, but I'd question on the methods permitted without your approval.

In other words, I may agree they can look but I don't agree they can enter the premises or agree on the method of inspecting.

I have my doubts on the legality of this. Even if it was legal, I could just refuse and be in breach of contract, but then what exactly does that allow the vendor to do from there?

I imagine the vendor could certainly sue you for licensing violations. They could probably then use the suit to make the courts allow them to inspect your computer systems as part of the disclosure.

What would they sue for? If it was to gain access to the premises then by the time it goes through the legal system you may have had enough time to remove any software violations.

I'd find it difficult to see how they win a monetary claim without proof of financial loss through software piracy.

To be honest I have no idea how it works legally. All I do is from the people who've been through it. According to them the first the company heard about it is when the BSA show up court order in hand and demand everybody step away from the keyboards.

Several years ago the city of Virginia Beach had to pay Microsoft $129,000.00 for being out of license compliance:

http://www.itworld.com/Man/2685/lw-12-vcontrol_2/

Microsoft and the Business Software Alliance are serious about piracy and making sure you are licensed for each installation of Microsoft products.

false

you can run it on many computer, just check google, a lot of people runned it

No... like running vista home edition......

>> Legally?

In a lot of countries once you buy something, you get a contract between the reseller and you. Microsoft doesn't print its EULA onto the box (even its introduction would never pass onto the box) and no one may inject the contract between you and your reseller without the will of both sides as it might drive your right to use the product as specified in the original contract useless.

Ergo the EULA is powerless there and people installed their home edition legally.

Quite different to Microsoft's downloads - there the EULA is a real contract between you and MS.

It is a sane system and hopefully contries not having this will adopt it soon. Although Valve is right now pretty exploiting that system with its Steam ...

"Apple sell computers where the OS is just another component. Like Amiga used to. Like IBM still does with AIX and PSeries. Selling "the whole banana" as Jobs calls it."

I had to translate this one into English so I could read it. Funny, it seemed to consist of English words, but it is in a different language.

Anyway, when I translated it, it said, they will not let you run MacOS in a virtual environment or on non-Apple branded hardware.

Hope that helps for you English speakers out there.

He meant "Apple sells [...]", since Apple is a singular entity (a company). Hope that helps.

So, two wrongs make a right.
Gee, I didn't hear -that- argument for a while.
What's next? "MOM!!!! But Apple did it first! They started it!!!!"

Should I really point out how morally wrong (and childish) this argument is, or can we simply ignore your post and move along?

- Gilboa