On 2006-10-13, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:04:47 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ...Unless you pay a lot of money.
>> Microsoft Vista licence restrictions hit hardware hard
> You are wrong, Roy, as usual.
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| While the expensive versions of Vista, Vista Ultimate and Vista Business,
>>| can be installed within a Virtual Machine environment, Vole forbids you
>>| from doing so with the cheaper Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium.
> False. It only prevents you from installing the same licensed copy in a VM.
So, he's wrong for quoting what someone else stated? Apparently they're
quoting others, too. The people /they/ quoted have updated their story:
[Update, Fri. Oct 13, 11:00 am: The initial version of this story
erroneously mischaracterized the way Microsoft's Vista license
applies to user of the OS in a virtual machine, stating that there
was a blanket ban in effect. This is incorrect; we regret the error.
The updated version of this story removes all references to a VM
ban, including a change in the headline, removal of a virtual
machine reference in the lead paragraph, and the deletion of the
fifth and sixth paragraphs of the original story.]
IOW it's Roy's fault (your contention) that he quoted someone who
quoted someone who quoted it wrong.
For the record, you're correct. The license simply says it can't be
installed *and* virtualized. It says nothing about it being either/or.
Paragraph 2 leaves things open to some possible future interpretation,
presumably by MS lawyers when they want to stick it to somebody:
"licensed device". And the validation steps could become troubling
later on if the situation isn't satisfactory to MS (paragraphs 5b and
5c). There's more than enough wiggle room for the monopolists to
slither out of any challenges later.
Have some time to waste? Install Windows.