virtualization.info: Microsoft denies some Vista editions to run virtualized

Microsoft denies some Vista editions to run virtualized

Friday, October 13, 2006 | 10 Comments |

Readying the launch of the incredibly suffered Windows Vista, Microsoft is clearing last important details and published the new EULA for XP successor. The new license astonishingly disallow customers purchasing Vista Home Basic and Home Premium to use their brand new OS inside any kind of virtualization platform:

USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

While the use of may not is very confusing, it suddenly becomes clear compared to explicit permission reported in Vista Ultimate:

USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.

Another very important thing to note is this license term doens't apply only to Microsoft, VMware and Xen-based virtualization platforms, but also hits other virtualization technologies, like OS partitioning offered by SWsoft with its Virtuozzo. Where is the benefit in disallowing virtualization of lower-end operating system editions? This move is dimming value of virtualization and seems totally against the huge investment Microsoft itself done so far, offering Virtual PC and Virtual Server products free of charge. Update: Ed Bott published on his ZDNet blog a very interesting follow-up of this story, detailing in an interview with a Microsoft representative several scenarios. I still believe this licensing term is very inadeguate to satisfy raising needs of virtualization. Each Microsoft Windows customer should be allowed to install his own OS on bare metal (desktop or laptop) and be free as well to install a second copy inside a virtual machine, moving it wherever he needs (developer or not). A comment to the Ed's story underline how this new approach could be lead by problems Microsoft is having with Windows Product Activation (WPA) in virtual environments. It's evident WPA cannot remain as is if Microsoft really wants to change image customers have of the company and spread virtualization to gain back a dominant market position. Changing the WPA is the solution, not licensing terms.

Comments

un
f---ing
real.

By Anonymous, at Friday, October 13, 2006 4:07:00 AM

It's the home users, hobbyist developers, Linux users, and Mac users -- exactly the people that can't afford it -- will be hurt the most. They'll have to pay the extra $100 tax to get Business or Ultimate. Corporate users will already be buying those versions, and usually have a volume license anyway.

By jtroyer at vmware, at Friday, October 13, 2006 5:13:00 AM

This may be licensing verbage to limit support calls for virtualized installations. I hope that is the case and they are not integrating any 'virtualization detection and blocking' type 'features'.

By Anonymous, at Friday, October 13, 2006 2:42:00 PM

Although Enterprise customers would use the other versions of Vista on their business desktops, some will have a need to test a home users desktop against their web site(s).

Do they want to have numerous desktop PC's in their DataCentres.

This is a disappointing change to the EULA from my perspective.

By Anonymous, at Friday, October 13, 2006 3:57:00 PM

The way that I read this is that you can't install the same OS within a VM that is installed on the physical hardware.

For example, if you are running Vista Home Basic on your hardware, you can't use the same license to install Vista Home Basic on a VM.

IIRC, you can do that with Business and Ultimate.

By Anonymous, at Friday, October 13, 2006 5:37:00 PM

Hmm..., I think I interpret it a little differently.

"You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system."

I can't decide if that is saying that the licensed device itself can't be a virtual machine, or that you can't use VM's with the same copy of windows within that licensed device.

If interpreted that way, the Ultimate edition could be interpreted like Mircosoft's Win2003 DataCenter R2 announcement of unlimited Virtualization - if you buy Ultimate edition of Vista you are also allowed to run more instances of it within VM's on that same machine. Perhaps in Ultimate R2 (or whatever it will be called) they are planning on bringing the Hypervisor they want to build into Longhorn down to the desktop.

By Anonymous, at Friday, October 13, 2006 6:01:00 PM

ZDnet's Ed Bott agrees with the previous comment that this is a misreading of the language, and that the license only prohibits being installed both on the physical and a virtual machine simultaneously. Since I'm not a lawyer, I'm willing to wait for clarification from Redmond.

By jtroyer at vmware, at Friday, October 13, 2006 7:39:00 PM

John,
if so the new license damages customers anyway: when you think about OS partitioning, the same platform is on physical device and in some ways also in the virtual one.

By alessandro, at Friday, October 13, 2006 7:50:00 PM

This does not limit your use of the software in a virtual environment. It is intended to limit your use of the same license for multiple installations. For instance, if you buy a new desktop with a copy of windows installed, you can't take that same license of Windows and install it in a virtual machine. This would be similar to not allowing you to install the same license on another machine. Ultimate edition opens up licensing and allows you to use the same license inside a virtual machine, even though the license is already installed on the physical machine.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, October 14, 2006 5:59:00 PM

Just to clarify, since MS is now on record: the comments on this thread are incorrect -- their intent indeed is that Vista Home may not be installed in a virtual machine.

What's even stranger is that even a retail copy of Vista Business or Ultimate in a VM may only be transferred one time to new physical hardware.

It should be noted, however, that Windows Server has different licensing, and that VMotion is covered under the appropriate license. Ask your VMware rep if you have questions.

By jtroyer at vmware, at Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:57:00 PM

Post a new comment