vmware and windows xp legal / license issue

[dave8421]

Hi,

I am going to run (red hat) linux and install vmware in order to run
winxp simultaneously.

Is it legal for me to create two seperate winxp machines with one
license. I need a couple of different windows configurations.

I will only be running one instance of windows at a time, I will not
have 2 virtual machines running.

I don't want to run into problems with activations. To me, this is
the same as having seperate partitions with winxp installed twice.

I really hope I don't have to buy another license.

 

[GHalleck]

Hi,

I am going to run (red hat) linux and install vmware in order to run
winxp simultaneously.

Is it legal for me to create two seperate winxp machines with one
license. I need a couple of different windows configurations.

I will only be running one instance of windows at a time, I will not
have 2 virtual machines running.

I don't want to run into problems with activations. To me, this is
the same as having seperate partitions with winxp installed twice.

I really hope I don't have to buy another license.

Asked and discussed several times in the past. IIRC, the consensus is
that VMWare constitutes a "second" machine, although it is "virtual".
Hence, a second license is required. That is the "legal" interpretation.

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Is it legal for me to create two seperate winxp machines with one
license.

Nope. But you knew that.

 

[dave8421]

Nope. But you knew that.

Grump, if I knew I wouldn't ask.

I don't see why it is illegal. My thinking is that its no different
that installing Win XP on two seperate partitions.

I won't run them at the same time, and the host system is Red Hat
Linux.

 

[Rock]

Grump, if I knew I wouldn't ask.

I don't see why it is illegal. My thinking is that its no different
that installing Win XP on two seperate partitions.

I won't run them at the same time, and the host system is Red Hat
Linux.

Two installs of XP require two licenses. Two installs of Vista requires two
licenses.

 

[dave8421]

Two installs of XP require two licenses. Two installs of Vista requires two

licenses.

I read the EULA, and yes. Now I agree that your interpretation is
correct.

That being said, I only need windows so I can test web applications.

Getting IE5, 5.5, 6, 7 working together is very frustrating.

It is silly for developers to be forced into buying seperate licenses
so we can build software.

In fact, as developers, why should we even buy a single one if all we
are doing is building software?!?

Here's my solution. When the installer is going, I'll ask someone
else to agree to the EULA (who won't ever use it and so won't be
violating any agreement).

Then, I'll go ahead and use it myself. I didn't agree to anything.

I try very hard not to pirate software and stay within legal limits,
but Microsoft is making this way too difficult, so I guess we'll have
to be the same.

 

[Rock]

I read the EULA, and yes. Now I agree that your interpretation is
correct.

That being said, I only need windows so I can test web applications.

Getting IE5, 5.5, 6, 7 working together is very frustrating.

It is silly for developers to be forced into buying seperate licenses
so we can build software.

In fact, as developers, why should we even buy a single one if all we
are doing is building software?!?

Here's my solution. When the installer is going, I'll ask someone
else to agree to the EULA (who won't ever use it and so won't be
violating any agreement).

Then, I'll go ahead and use it myself. I didn't agree to anything.

I try very hard not to pirate software and stay within legal limits,
but Microsoft is making this way too difficult, so I guess we'll have
to be the same.

Lol, yeah right. No need to over analyze this. Pick one excuse, and go
with it. Whatever works for you to justify a lack of integrity.

 

[dave8421]

Lol, yeah right. No need to over analyze this. Pick one excuse, and go
with it. Whatever works for you to justify a lack of integrity.

I think it needs to be analyzed very carefully.

Well, I guess I'm just looking for a legal solution to this problem.

Maybe I went on a bit of a tangent, sorry .. but I really want to just
know about the legality of someone else agreeing to the EULA instead
of me. As a developer I don't care if Windows expires after 30 days
and I'm not saving any data in the Windows system. I'm just testing
browsers.

 

[waresoft]

Rock wrote:-
Lol, yeah right. No need to over analyze this. Pick one excuse, an
go
with it. Whatever works for you to justify a lack of integrity.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]-

I think it needs to be analyzed very carefully.

Well, I guess I'm just looking for a legal solution to this problem.

Maybe I went on a bit of a tangent, sorry .. but I really want to just
know about the legality of someone else agreeing to the EULA instead
of me. As a developer I don't care if Windows expires after 30 days
and I'm not saving any data in the Windows system. I'm just testing
browsers.

As a Developer, have you thought about getting an 'MSDN Operatin
Systems Subscription' (http://tinyurl.com/2kam3f)

 

[dave8421]

As a Developer, have you thought about getting an 'MSDN Operating
Systems Subscription' (http://tinyurl.com/2kam3f)?

--

Thank you for this information. Perhaps somewhere down the line, I'm
on a limited budget.

I found out that MS has released a virtual pc image that can run IE6.
So, I will purchase 1 Vista basic license, and run the VM. On my
Celeron with 512RAM, I'm pretty sure this is going to be a struggle,
but its a start. If MS can release VMs for IE5, 5.5 etc. that would
also help.

It would be great if MS could release some sort of browser pack that
doesn't require a VM. Its a resource hog, but perhaps the problem of
creating such a browser pack isn't easy? If it was, I can't see why
MS wouldn't have done that already.