Loading ...
Software licensing and virtual machines
I recently had a “collision” with the vendor of a major installer software package. Basically I had, unbeknownst to me, used up the three installations I was allowed to make by getting a new computer and re-creating my virtual machines a year ago.
When I attempted to create another virtual machine and install the software I was informed that I could not unlock this anymore.
A email conversation with their support revealed that
a) I have only three (3) allowed installations
b) I am supposed to uninstall the software before re-imaging
a hard drive or a VM to free up these licenses
c) NONE of these requirements are listed in the vendors EULA
or any other legal agreement.
Regardless of the outcome of this argument, it brings up the question of how virtual machines should be handled in regards to software licensing.
SAPIEN software products are generally licensed by user and allow installation on up to five computers, provided the software is only used by the same user.
Virtual machines on a server that are used by many users clearly do not fall into that category, but what about the many VMs you create on your hard disk for testing purposes? Physically it is the same machine and you are usually the only user. As far as most software is concerned, running in a VM cannot be distinguished from running on a completely separate hardware.
What is your take? Let us know what you consider fair use in regards to VMs. How do you interpret EULAs when it comes to virtual machines?
Sound off in the comments….
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Tags: SAPIEN, Virtual Machine, VM licensing
November 10th, 2008 at 4:31 am
I have programs that specify that the user can use the software on one system or one system and a laptop. Most don’t seem to differentiate between real and virtual. I think this is the way to go. We have been moving more and more to Linux and most EULA’s are GNU… Now, THAT is the way I like it. I pay for some Linux stuff, just like I pay for Windows stuff. If you restrict me to one VM in a test environment, and you competitor doesn’t, you had better be a LOT better than him.
My preference is a license that specifies user, not machine.
Lou
November 10th, 2008 at 4:45 am
Generally speaking, I think VMs should be treated identically to physical boxes. For the purposes of licensing an app like PrimalScript, I would think that a VM which is intended for use by multiple users is no different than a terminal server installed on physical hardware. Do you guys sell different license packages that are intended for that type of scenario?
November 11th, 2008 at 5:07 am
I am not a developer but i often build systems (OS + apps) for customers where appications need to be tested for various compatibility issues.
In my opinion Licencing models should be to help both the vendor and the customer not just one or the other. These limitations build in the packages often rears its head during a migration in the middle of a huge project allready streached to teh limits of its deadlines.
So i believe that any software you use as part of test or trial purposes should be ‘free’ to use in those environments when you have a valid licencing agreement for that piece of software to use on your production environment.
The whole discussion whether or not the software is running on a VM or a dedicated box becomes irrelevant that way. There are some exceptions for example the dedicated DTAP environments are permanent machines (vm or box) which are really part of the production chain.
I understand the reasoning behind the whole ‘activation’ model, restricting how many times the app can be installed. It’s just that it is generaly a great pain in environments without internet access and my short term vm’s never contact the outide world. And i don’t really like to call vendors for reactivation for these types of machines and not being able to test when these limits are present brings more problems yet.