[CentOS] Problem installing Windows under Xen CentOS 5

Thu Apr 26 19:09:25 UTC 2007
Ioannis Vranos <ivranos at freemail.gr>

Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On 4/26/07, Sean Brown <sbrown.home at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > And AFAIK MS license agreement requires a separate licensing for
>> > Windows to be used under any competitive virtual machine, but not
>> > for their own VM (Virtual PC). Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly.
>> > _______________________________________________
>>
>> No it doesn't.
> 
> Where is the source of this information???


OK, this is what I remembered in general as a home user. I checked it on 
the web, and I found the following. This is from a pro-Windows site, but 
the conclusion is still the same.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp



"Virtualization licensing

One final area that's come under a lot of scrutiny--and, as it turns 
out, misguided interpretations--regards virtualization. With Windows 
Vista, Microsoft is finally addressing virtualization in the EULA. And 
it goes something like this:

Any version of Windows Vista can host virtual machines (VMs), whether in 
Microsoft's Virtual PC solution or a rival product like VMWare 
Workstation. However, only two retail version of Windows Vista are 
licensed for use as a guest OS in a VM: Windows Vista Business and 
Ultimate. (A third--non-retail--Vista version, Vista Enterprise, has 
different licensing terms, which I'll address in a bit.)

Let that one sink in for a second. You cannot install Windows Vista Home 
Basic or Home Premium in a virtual machine, at least from a legal 
standpoint. (There is nothing technical preventing you from doing so, of 
course.) And on a related note, each retail copy of Vista you purchase 
is only licensable for one install. If you install a copy of Windows 
Vista in a virtual machine and then activate it, you cannot install the 
same copy of Vista on a physical machine and reactivate it (unless you 
take advantage of the transfer rights mentioned above, of course). One 
license equals one installation.

So why "restrict" users like that? Well, as it turns out, there's no 
massive conspiracy. Currently, the majority of Microsoft's 
virtualization users fall into exactly two groups: business customers 
and enthusiasts. Business customers will want Vista Business and 
enthusiasts will use Vista Ultimate. Simple. And though pundits might 
like to complain about this apparently arbitrary decision, the reality 
is that very, very few people can ever come up with a legitimate reason 
to run, say, Vista Home Basic in a VM. And those that want to, can, if 
they don't mind violating the Vista EULA and not receiving support.

Windows Vista Enterprise is a special case. With that version of Vista, 
which will be made available only to volume license customers, users 
will be able to install a single licensed copy of Vista on one physical 
PC and up to four VMs, simultaneously. Those four VMs, however, must all 
be installed on the same Vista Enterprise-based PC, and they must be 
used by the same user. "If customers need multiple virtual machines they 
should use Vista Enterprise," Microsoft's Scott Woodgate told me. "The 
intention is to be generous and enable whatever scenarios are customers 
may need." Sounds like a customer benefit to me."


Conclusion: "You cannot install Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium 
in a virtual machine, at least from a legal standpoint".