Ioannis Vranos wrote: > > "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". Some more links on this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/29/microsoft_vista_eula_analysis/page2.html http://www.google.gr/search?q=microsoft+vista+vmware+license&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official I haven't researched the entire mess thoroughly but you get the picture, you will need a lawyer if you use vmware & windows. :-)