Virtualize OEM Windows Tablet XP

[bcw]

I searched on "virtualize OEM windows" first and didn't find an answer (or any posts).

I have a Tablet PC with included OEM Tablet XP. May I virtualize it to run only on the same hardware (but in another OS as host)?

Separately, may I run the native install in VMware directly from the hard disk partition (I know there are technical concerns, I want to know if I'm in legal trouble).

Information, and pointers to how it's determined, are greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Bret

[admin]

Hi Bret,

The world of OEM can be quite a tricky and complicated area. There are som many pitfalls and gotchas in relation to virtualizing OEM systems. When using OEM based software, there are a lot of legal stipulations and limitations that are involved and applied to the software in question.

Once such stipulation is that the OEM software, in your case the Windows XP operating system, is only licensed for use on the hardware that it was provided on by the OEM vendor. Virtual machines have their own virtual hardware and are in essence different hardware platforms. By putting a OEM licensed OS from a OEM supplied installation into a virtual machine, you would actually be in breach of the OEM licensing terms.

It is not an area that I would want to be going down. You would be entitled to support from Micrsoft or the hardware vendor if you were to break the OEM agreement.

Hope this helps.

[bcw]

Hello

Can you confirm that a Judge has or has not ruled that the "virtual hardware" of a VMware session qualifies as a different machine, when all the software is in fact running on the real (licensed) hardware?

That would be useful to know - Lawyers have opinions and argue them - Judges decide. Your answer is detailed enough that you might know about that.

I don't find it personally plausible that anyone is fooled about the difference between an "unreal computer" faked in software as a management convenience (which is what VMware is) and the real hardware the programs are all running on.

Is there case law about this yet?

Thanks,

Bret

[admin]

Well to be honest with you, I could not say whether a judge has or has not ruled on this. I don't study Law and I find it incredibly boring ; - )

You should talk to the individual software vendors and / or hardware vendors for further accurate information in relation to thier respective licensing agreements. I am only commenting on what I know from my day to day workings with VMware and every other OS.

However from working with VMware and Microsoft solutions every day of the week, I can say to you that as far as the Microsoft operating system is concerned, every installation / instance of the operating system needs its own license.

This means that If you have physical server running Windows, then it will need a license. Any applications running on that OS installation will then need their own licenses too. Now, when you install a virtual platform on this Windows OS, the application in question is going to have a license and a license agreement according to the vendor of that software.

When you use that virtual software to create virtual machines for intent of running Microsoft operating systems, then each virtual machine is a unique machine / instance, so that operating system that is going to be installed in the virtual machine will need to adhere to the licensing agreements of that OS just like on any other physical machine.

Basically, if you have Windows XP license key, then you are only entitled to have one XP installation and that key would be used for that. Technically you can install multiple virtual machines with Windows XP and then use the same license key in each virtual machine, but then you would be breeching the licensing agreements of the Windows OS. This is how it is outside of OEM.

OEM licenses are the same except they have a few extra clauses. One such clause, is that OEM software is sold and licensed from OS vendor to the hardware vendor. The end-user would then be licensed to that hardware vendor as per the OEM license agreements. Most OEM installations of Windows for example,would contain a OEM license stamp or text file, etc.... which would prevent the software from being moved to other hardware. In other words, if you have bought hardware with OEM WIndows on it from someone like HP, then you will not be able to simply just move this software to another hardware platform like IBM.

If MIcrosoft did not have these licensing agreements, then everyone would be using their software for free ; - )

When installing your next installation of a Windows operating system, you should have a good read of the licensing agreement before you proceed. Most people dont read it when installing, but it does help explain things a bit more.

[theanykey]

This is something that would need to be discussed between you (the Windows software purchaser) and the company (Windows) which produced the EULA. If in your EULA you are allowed to take an install of Windows and "migrate" it to different hardware then the same goes for converting it. However if in your EULA it specifically states you can not, then again, the same goes for converting. This is not a matter of VMWare but rather specifics within your EULA. Each release of a Windows OS has subtle differences in what is and what is not allowable in terms of relocating OEM Windows installations.

[bcw]

The EULA does not mention virtualization at all. it only says the software must only be used on the hardware it is sold with. Again, that is the case. I am introducing third-party management software (VMware) for my convenience in running this copy of Windows, but the only hardware involved is the hardware the copy of Windows was sold with.

In order to satisfy similar licenses when selling OEM Windows on ebay, people include a piece of hardware. I think this is suspect, but does point out that a reasonable person can be expected to know the difference between software (VMware) and hardware (the computer this is all actually running on). I don't think any reasonable person is fooled by VMware or Microsoft's marketing concepts. This is management software, and only the actual hardware is hardware.

The person on the street, who does not work with computers, will think you mad if you can't tell the difference between VMware (software) and a physical computer (hardware), and it is the person on the street who sits on a jury.

So, I am curious if a court has decided case law about this matter before. The law (in the US and some other countries) MUST pass the 'reasonable person' test, as the question is decided by a jury in most cases.

I'm not speaking of moving the software to another piece of physical hardware, so that isn't relevant here. Software is not hardware.

I'm curious that VMware's legal department can't answer this. Perhaps that means the matter has not been challenged in court yet. I would be surprised if Microsoft prevailed in this particular, narrow case I am writing of here.

So, do any of you know of case law about this?

Cheers,

Bret

[bcw]

Thinking about this, note the difference between 'computer', as in 'other computer' - either real or virtual, and 'hardware', as in 'other hardware'.

The XP Tablet EULA I have does not mention 'other computer', it speaks of 'other hardware'.

I've read that the Vista license explicitily addresses 'virtualization', and I suspect that this is because of the ambituity of considering a 'virtual computer' as a real one. If a virtual computer were real, software could be run on it without an underlying real computer, but this is not the case - there must be hardware.

But this is an aside, as the license issue here is 'other hardware', not 'other computers', so whether VMware provides an 'other computer' or not seems irrelevant. The software is copied onto the hard disk, legal, copied by the computer into RAM at runtime, legal. The only difference is introducing management software (VMware) for my convenience while doing this. No extra copies are made, and no other hardware is involved.

Interesting. Vista is likely a very different matter, however, due to the mention of 'virtualization' in the license.

Cheers,

Bret