10

Possible Duplicate:
How does Windows 7 licensing work for running the OS as Virtual Machines?

To sum things up:

  • I have bought Windows 7 Professional (OEM license)
  • It's installed on my laptop
  • Am I allowed to create virtual machines, using any freely available virtualization software, and use Windows 7 Professional with the same license key on them as well? Does it make a difference if it's an OEM license or not?
  • I would use the laptop to run the virtualization software.

Why?

  • To try out software on a virtual instance and not risk cluttering my main OS install
  • It might be a nice way to separate concerns

In my experience there are a lot of rumors and speculations concerning license issues. Please do not answer based on a feeling. I'm interested in answers from people who have investigated this, by carefully reading the license agreement or by contacting Microsoft.

Community
  • 1
Deleted
  • 4,928
  • 9
  • 37
  • 33
  • I'm dubious about the title. If you're an administrator and has a better one feel free to improve it! – Deleted Jan 09 '13 at 12:56
  • The title doesn't exactly match the question, and I'm curious about which one you intended to ask. 'Am I allowed to...' and 'Does the license allow me to...' can have two very different answers. – Marcks Thomas Jan 09 '13 at 13:19
  • Here is a link to free Windows virtual machines in VirtualPC format, which can be converted to vbox for example): http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=11575 You can freely use them to test said applications without cluttering your own install. – Shadok Jan 10 '13 at 15:18
  • @MarcksThomas: I added another bullet under "To sum things up". Did it make things less confusing? Could you please elaborate on why the title doesn't match what I want to ask? – Deleted Jan 10 '13 at 23:37
  • @Mokubai: Well they're certainly similar. My question concerns Windows 7 Professional and the possible duplicate is about Windows 7 Ultimate. Theoretically their EULAs could be different, I don't know if they are. – Deleted Jan 10 '13 at 23:39
  • @Kent: For instance, in my jurisdiction, the EULA cannot enforce prohibiting installing Windows 7 both directly and on a VM. By law, I am allowed to do so. Does the license allow me to? No. – Marcks Thomas Jan 10 '13 at 23:50
  • @MarcksThomas: Ah. That's where the legal knowledge comes in. I'm from Sweden and without legal expertice. So I'll abide by the EULA. Shadoks link above is a nice workaround for me. – Deleted Jan 10 '13 at 23:53
  • @Shadok: Thanks! That gives me a way to test software in an environment I can "flush". :-) – Deleted Jan 10 '13 at 23:54
  • @Kent The [Microsoft End User License Term Search Tool](http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/UseTerms/Default.aspx) will tell you everything you could ever want to know regarding what Microsoft will let you do with their software and is where I got my info in the question I linked. The essential rights Microsoft gives home users are (iirc) the same for any edition a home user has access to. – Mokubai Jan 11 '13 at 18:05

1 Answers1

21

The answer is no.

From the Windows 7 licence agreement available at www.microsoft.com, section 3 "ADDITIONAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS AND/OR USE RIGHTS":

d. Use with Virtualization Technologies. Instead of using the software directly on the licensed computer, you may install and use the software within only one virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed computer.

Note the "instead of" part. If you use the licence to install Windows in a VM, you may not use it for a second Windows installation on the physical computer.

This applies to both OEM and retail licences.

Indrek
  • 24,204
  • 14
  • 90
  • 93
  • 1
    Thanks for an excellent and informative answer! :-) I wish they would have been a bit more generous though. – Deleted Jan 09 '13 at 13:10
  • The quote from the license agreement specifies a few conditions under which the licensee is allowed to use the software on a virtual machine, but does not forbid usage outside of these conditions and therefore does not back your conclusion, which may nonetheless be true. Even if skipping over them might normally be appropriate, these details are fairly important in a legal question. – Marcks Thomas Jan 09 '13 at 13:31
  • 1
    @MarcksThomas - I think Indrek did a good job pointing out that a Windows license can be used in a virtual machine or a physical machine but the license does not grant the use of the same license on both at the sametime. – Ramhound Jan 09 '13 at 13:36
  • @MarcksThomas IMHO, the "instead of" part makes it pretty clear that this is an either-or deal - you can run your copy of Windows either directly on the licensed computer, or in a VM, but not both. The user only has the rights explicitly described in the EULA, and since the quoted section of the EULA is the only one that concerns virtualisation, I'm not sure what exactly you think I skipped over. – Indrek Jan 09 '13 at 13:44
  • @Indrek: This part of the license suggests you can run a copy directly on the licensed computer or in a VM. You added 'but not both'. The quote shows neither that doing both is allowed nor that it is forbidden, as the words 'you may install' only add to what the user can do. Including the assumption from your comment, _'the quoted section [...] is the only one that concerns virtualisation'_, makes the argument that the license does not allow both installations logically conclusive. – Marcks Thomas Jan 09 '13 at 14:24
  • @MarcksThomas Like I said before, the "instead of" part makes the two options mutually exclusive and thus my interpretation logically follows from the quoted part of the EULA. If the user were allowed to use the licence on both the physical machine and a VM at the same time, it would say something like "in addition to", not "instead of". – Indrek Jan 09 '13 at 15:11
  • 1
    @Indrek: You did say that, but it is not entirely true. 'Instead of' does exclude option A in the sense that the permission described thereafter is only valid if option A is dismissed. That however, does not rule out the possibility both option A and B are allowed simultaneously. It merely rules out that, if both are indeed allowed, the permission for option B follows from the quoted paragraph. The permission can be derived elsewhere without contradictions. – Marcks Thomas Jan 09 '13 at 19:22
  • Whatever. You have your interpretation of the EULA, I have mine. If you want to post yours as a separate answer, feel free, but this discussion is going nowhere. – Indrek Jan 09 '13 at 19:44
  • The way I see it, neither of you is a lawyer (AFAIK), and in any case legal issues are off topic here. :) – Karan Jan 10 '13 at 14:41
  • @Karan: Well the question is about the EULA of a piece of software. And software is on topic. There are lots of software license questions here. I personally think it's a pretty important part of a piece of software. – Deleted Jan 10 '13 at 23:47
  • @Kent: Guess I should have worded that better (and I didn't vote to close BTW). What I meant was, Indrek and Marcks differ over their interpretation of the EULA, and probably that's something only a lawyer can clarify. However, discussion of the proper interpretation would be off topic here (as a question) since it would be a legal issue. – Karan Jan 10 '13 at 23:51