Parallels/Boot Camp questions

[Dave Schroeder]

On Dec 3, 2006, at 5:51 PM, Chad Leigh wrote:

>
> On Dec 3, 2006, at 4:45 PM, Chad Leigh wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Dave Schroeder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 3, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Chad Leigh wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 3, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Matt Johnston wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3 Dec 2006, at 19:23, David Zhou wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But AFAIK, the Windows license allows VMs, so it's possible to  
>>>>>> active twice with the same copy of XP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't Vista remove this? For all but Premium?
>>>>
>>>> Not if you read the license literally.  It only applies to using  
>>>> a VM on the licensed device and OS X / Mac is not a licensed  
>>>> device until WinV is installed on it and you cannot install on  
>>>> it unless maybe using bootcamp.  On explanation I read was to  
>>>> stop the same copy of windows from being the VM host and the OS  
>>>> running in the VM.
>>>
>>> That's what I thought to. Unfortunately that's not the case:
>>>
>>> http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,61969665,00.htm
>>
>> Then they have to re-write the license as the license does not say  
>> that.
>>
>> Chad
>
> In other words, the binding terms are the license terms as they  
> exist when you purchase the SW, not the interpretation of some MS  
> drone on ZDNET or Mr Paul T.  As long as they key it to running in  
> a VM on the licensed device, as long as there is not a WinV  
> installed on the machine itself in a runnable form, the Mac  
> *cannot* be the licensed device as far a I can see and hence the  
> prohibition wouldn't apply.
>
> IANALAIDPOOTV

I'm not disagreeing with essentially what you're saying. But this has  
been heavily publicized and Microsoft has made several official  
public statements to the effect that virtualization is "not allowed"  
by the EULA for the Home versions of Vista (unless via MSDN).

If Microsoft wants to make that clear, then they need to say that in  
the EULA. However, if Microsoft's intent is really to stop  
virtualization, then maybe rewriting the EULA is NOT a good idea,  
since as it stands, I certainly read it as allowing virtualization as  
long as the license isn't in use elsewhere.

- Dave
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2380 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061203/aef7a4a6/smime.bin