Retail XP Home with Virtual PC?

I've always felt this is a grey area in the EULA. I read once (but
don't ask me where) that it is acceptable to use a single Windows
license between a laptop and a desktop with the theory that you aren't
using the licenses at the same time. It's quite possible this was made
up years ago, but it always seemed reasonable to me and equally
applicable to VPC.

The activation really isn't a problem as, to date, I have installed my
Windows XP Home license on two separate VPC installations and have not
had the activation rejected. I also had to reinstall the Windows OS
multiple times in the space of about a month when I made my transition
from my Windows desktop to my OS X box, at which time I had the Windows
XP license activated on both boxes at the same time. To date, I have
never had my activation rejected by the Microsoft mothership, though I
imagine I might have been pushing the limits of how often they will let
you activate the same license in a given period of time.

Which is all to say that I think it is a fine line in breaking the EULA
when using a single Windows license on both a standalone Wintel box and
on your Apple in VPC. My opinion, and I might get blasted for it, is
that Microsoft won't hunt down VPC users for this type of thing even if
they are able to detect it appropriately. If you can activate the
license a second time on your VPC then I think it is down to a matter
of personal morals on whether you believe you are breaking the fine
print of the EULA or not.

I don't advocate software piracy, of course, but I think this is okay
as long as it isn't abused. If you were installing the same license on
50 different machines, then that would be wrong and I imagine Microsoft
would catch on.
 >> Stay informed about: Retail XP Home with Virtual PC? 

>I've always felt this is a grey area in the EULA. I read once (but
>don't ask me where) that it is acceptable to use a single Windows
>license between a laptop and a desktop with the theory that you aren't
>using the licenses at the same time. It's quite possible this was made
>up years ago, but it always seemed reasonable to me and equally
>applicable to VPC.
>
There is no 'grey area' in the EULA. You can install Windows on a
single machine only. No exceptions.
>
>The activation really isn't a problem as, to date, I have installed my
>Windows XP Home license on two separate VPC installations and have not
>had the activation rejected. I also had to reinstall the Windows OS
>multiple times in the space of about a month when I made my transition
>from my Windows desktop to my OS X box, at which time I had the Windows
>XP license activated on both boxes at the same time. To date, I have
>never had my activation rejected by the Microsoft mothership, though I
>imagine I might have been pushing the limits of how often they will let
>you activate the same license in a given period of time.
>
Activation has nothing at all to do with licensing
>
>Which is all to say that I think it is a fine line in breaking the EULA
>when using a single Windows license on both a standalone Wintel box and
>on your Apple in VPC. My opinion, and I might get blasted for it, is
>that Microsoft won't hunt down VPC users for this type of thing even if
>they are able to detect it appropriately. If you can activate the
>license a second time on your VPC then I think it is down to a matter
>of personal morals on whether you believe you are breaking the fine
>print of the EULA or not.
>
A fine line? Rubbish. That's like stating that you only broke into 5
homes and stole only 5 items from each home. Therefore, you didn't
really break the law because you didn't take everything. You either
break the license agreement or you do not.
>
>I don't advocate software piracy, of course, but I think this is okay
>as long as it isn't abused. If you were installing the same license on
>50 different machines, then that would be wrong and I imagine Microsoft
>would catch on.

You don't advocate software piracy? Read your post, man. Putting
Windows on more than one machine IS software piracy.
Oh, by the way, have you ever stopped to consider that the version of
Windows he is using might be an OEM version and is licensed to the
computer manufacturer rather than the user?
 >> Stay informed about: Retail XP Home with Virtual PC? 

Not an unexpected response. Nuff said on my part.
 >> Stay informed about: Retail XP Home with Virtual PC? 

You are rationalizing. Your copy of Windows is for use on a single computer
and MS is clear that a virtual machine is a computer in its own right. You
violate the EULA even if the virtual machine is on same computer from which
you borrowed Windows. This usage is called "casual copying".

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"barneynibbs" <bill.dickinson.jr.DeleteThis@mathom.net> wrote in message
news:1131481670.954592.296130@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I've always felt this is a grey area in the EULA. I read once (but
> don't ask me where) that it is acceptable to use a single Windows
> license between a laptop and a desktop with the theory that you aren't
> using the licenses at the same time. It's quite possible this was made
> up years ago, but it always seemed reasonable to me and equally
> applicable to VPC.
>
> The activation really isn't a problem as, to date, I have installed my
> Windows XP Home license on two separate VPC installations and have not
> had the activation rejected. I also had to reinstall the Windows OS
> multiple times in the space of about a month when I made my transition
> from my Windows desktop to my OS X box, at which time I had the Windows
> XP license activated on both boxes at the same time. To date, I have
> never had my activation rejected by the Microsoft mothership, though I
> imagine I might have been pushing the limits of how often they will let
> you activate the same license in a given period of time.
>
> Which is all to say that I think it is a fine line in breaking the EULA
> when using a single Windows license on both a standalone Wintel box and
> on your Apple in VPC. My opinion, and I might get blasted for it, is
> that Microsoft won't hunt down VPC users for this type of thing even if
> they are able to detect it appropriately. If you can activate the
> license a second time on your VPC then I think it is down to a matter
> of personal morals on whether you believe you are breaking the fine
> print of the EULA or not.
>
> I don't advocate software piracy, of course, but I think this is okay
> as long as it isn't abused. If you were installing the same license on
> 50 different machines, then that would be wrong and I imagine Microsoft
> would catch on.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Retail XP Home with Virtual PC? 

Yep, I am rationalizing - can't argue there. Let's take a case example
- my own recent use of my Windows licenses. I purchased a Windows XP
Home license to run on my Intel box, but then made the switch to a G5
using VPC.

Now, in migrating to VPC on the G5, I installed my WinXP Home license
when I was still running it on my Intel box. It is common sense that
when migrating data and applications from one workstation to another
you do not immediately burn down the first workstation before ensuring
that everything is working correctly and has been transferred without
corruption to the new workstation. This holds true when going from one
workstation to another with the same operating system and holds doubly
true when migrating between Windows and Mac OS. I have served my time
as a sysadmin in a dual-OS environment and have been burned by not
taking this precaution enough times to know better by now.

After several weeks of verifying that everything made it over correctly
into OS X and that my WinXP install under VPC was running my
applications the way it should and could see all of the data files on
the underlying OS X properly, I wiped the hard drive on the Intel box
and came back to using my single Windows license on a single "box" - in
this case the virtual machine of VPC.

Now, during the 2-3 weeks that I was running the same WinXP license on
two separate machines, by the strict definition of the EULA I was
"breaking the law." Does this mean that I was required to purchase a
second WinXP Home license even though, in the end, I only have one
install of my license? By the letter of the law of the EULA, I would
think that the answer to that question is yes, but the reality is that
I don't think even Microsoft would argue that I would need to purchase
a second license. Hence, grey areas in the EULA.

Maybe the original situation brought up about running both a standalone
Wintel box and a VPC with the same license is more black then grey,
but, yes, I would rationalize the decision to do so. The EULA is
Micrsoft's (and any other software company) tool for making it as
difficult as possible for mass abuse and real piracy - where somone
digs up a license number without having paid for even a single license
and installs it willy-nilly whenever and wherever they can. It is not a
bludgeon that Microsoft uses against people that have already purchased
an official license and may fudge the technicalities of the EULA while
using the license they paid for - as long as they don't cross over the
line into abusing it. Microsoft is a very efficient business and I am
sure understands that these minor infractions against the EULA are not
intent to steal their software. They are simply a part of the reality
of using computers.

This debate has raged for many years in many different forums and it
certainly won't be resolved by us here. There will always be those that
believe only a strict interpretation is the right approach and there
will always be those that believe there should be some recognition made
of the spirit of the agreement in light of the intent of the
individual.

Yes this is rationalization, but that's not a bad thing.
 >> Stay informed about: Retail XP Home with Virtual PC? 

I don't have any problem with your opinion about the EULA. You are
entitled to that.

I do, however, have a problem with your advice to users in this forum
that it's OK to install Windows in VPC and on a PC using the same
license. Split as many hairs as you want, this is CLEARLY a violation
of the EULA.

>Which is all to say that I think it is a fine line in breaking the EULA
>when using a single Windows license on both a standalone Wintel box and
>on your Apple in VPC
 >> Stay informed about: Retail XP Home with Virtual PC? 

If you have wiped the installation from one of the computers and the
software is running in compliance now, it appears that you solved your own
issue.

I agree with Paul.

Coming into the forum and going through all this is only going to get the
responses you have gotten. We see this all the time in these newsgroups.

The EULA is a contract and what you purchased was the license, not the
software. That means you don't get to unilaterally declare "grey areas" and
make up your own rules. When I agreed to the EULA I agreed to all of it
including the parts that I don't like. If you have serious questions about
the EULA versus practices, your recourse is to contact MS Legal and just ask
or not use the software.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"barneynibbs" <bill.dickinson.jr.TakeThisOut@mathom.net> wrote in message
news:1131721394.762611.75300@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Yep, I am rationalizing - can't argue there. Let's take a case example
> - my own recent use of my Windows licenses. I purchased a Windows XP
> Home license to run on my Intel box, but then made the switch to a G5
> using VPC.
>
> Now, in migrating to VPC on the G5, I installed my WinXP Home license
> when I was still running it on my Intel box. It is common sense that
> when migrating data and applications from one workstation to another
> you do not immediately burn down the first workstation before ensuring
> that everything is working correctly and has been transferred without
> corruption to the new workstation. This holds true when going from one
> workstation to another with the same operating system and holds doubly
> true when migrating between Windows and Mac OS. I have served my time
> as a sysadmin in a dual-OS environment and have been burned by not
> taking this precaution enough times to know better by now.
>
> After several weeks of verifying that everything made it over correctly
> into OS X and that my WinXP install under VPC was running my
> applications the way it should and could see all of the data files on
> the underlying OS X properly, I wiped the hard drive on the Intel box
> and came back to using my single Windows license on a single "box" - in
> this case the virtual machine of VPC.
>
> Now, during the 2-3 weeks that I was running the same WinXP license on
> two separate machines, by the strict definition of the EULA I was
> "breaking the law." Does this mean that I was required to purchase a
> second WinXP Home license even though, in the end, I only have one
> install of my license? By the letter of the law of the EULA, I would
> think that the answer to that question is yes, but the reality is that
> I don't think even Microsoft would argue that I would need to purchase
> a second license. Hence, grey areas in the EULA.
>
> Maybe the original situation brought up about running both a standalone
> Wintel box and a VPC with the same license is more black then grey,
> but, yes, I would rationalize the decision to do so. The EULA is
> Micrsoft's (and any other software company) tool for making it as
> difficult as possible for mass abuse and real piracy - where somone
> digs up a license number without having paid for even a single license
> and installs it willy-nilly whenever and wherever they can. It is not a
> bludgeon that Microsoft uses against people that have already purchased
> an official license and may fudge the technicalities of the EULA while
> using the license they paid for - as long as they don't cross over the
> line into abusing it. Microsoft is a very efficient business and I am
> sure understands that these minor infractions against the EULA are not
> intent to steal their software. They are simply a part of the reality
> of using computers.
>
> This debate has raged for many years in many different forums and it
> certainly won't be resolved by us here. There will always be those that
> believe only a strict interpretation is the right approach and there
> will always be those that believe there should be some recognition made
> of the spirit of the agreement in light of the intent of the
> individual.
>
> Yes this is rationalization, but that's not a bad thing.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Retail XP Home with Virtual PC?