Windows license question

[smizack]

I haven't called MS yet but to make a long story short my boss needs to have 2 XP partitions on his laptop. (Two cities, two networks, two data sets, and he's a complete noob.)

My question is, can I legally install the same version of XP Pro twice on the same laptop using 2 different partitions? I personally don't see why not. You can only boot to one at a time and the hardware that the software was licensed to is the same obviously.

Thanks.

[bbz_Ghost]

Now this is an interesting question as well as a perplexing dilemma. I'm sure the answer is "No" of course, but I guess Microsoft would be the one to ask unless someone specifically has experience with it.

A legitimate use for 2 XP installations on the same machine using the same key, obviously... very interesting indeed.

Personally, if that happened to me and since all I use are laptops with OEM versions that are tied directly to the specific hardware I'm using (Dell for Dell, HP for HP, etc) I'd just install it and be done with it. But if it's a retail copy or an open OEM copy like the kind you can get from Newegg these days, there could be some legality issues...

This is one of those situations where software licensing just runs amok and you're left scratching your head wondering, "Who the hell would it hurt since it's a legit copy anyway?"

[GORANKAR]

2 instances on the same machine? Legal? I dunno.. But I don't think you would have any trouble with activation..

[SJConsultant]

2 installs on the same machine requires 2 licenses to be "legal".

From XP EULA (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/proeula.mspx)

1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.

[smizack]

Interesting. Well, I guess I'm getting another copy of XP then.
I think I'll still call MS just to see what they say about it.

[Down8]

2 installs on the same machine requires 2 licenses to be "legal".

From XP EULA (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/proeula.mspx)
That applies to server grades of the OS - meaning XP Pro can't be used on an 8-way machine.

-bZj

[ryan_975]

2 installs on the same machine requires 2 licenses to be "legal".

From XP EULA (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/proeula.mspx)

You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer

Since the word AND is in ther instead of OR or AND/OR maybe one could argue semantics and say that since only one copy is running at any given moment that it meets the terms of the license.

[SJConsultant]

That applies to server grades of the OS - meaning XP Pro can't be used on an 8-way machine.

I quite don't know what point your trying to make since XP Pro is not a server OS and never has been considered a server grade OS.

Since the word AND is in ther instead of OR or AND/OR maybe one could argue semantics and say that since only one copy is running at any given moment that it meets the terms of the license.

You can argue semantics if you want, but all the documentation, Q&A, and FAQs state clearly installing more than one instance on a single machine requires additional licenses. I'm sure if you searched through the forums you'll find a couple threads nitpicking at the EULA.

[ryan_975]

I quite don't know what point your trying to make since XP Pro is not a server OS and never has been considered a server grade OS.



You can argue semantics if you want, but all the documentation, Q&A, and FAQs state clearly installing more than one instance on a single machine requires additional licenses. I'm sure if you searched through the forums you'll find a couple threads nitpicking at the EULA.

However, when installing Windows XP a person doesn't agree to Q&As, FAQs and documentation. A person agrees to the EULA and that is what is legally binding. If MS wanted to push the issue they could, argue the intent of the EULA is what is important rether than it's literal meaning, so it's a moot point to argue semantics anyhow.

[SJConsultant]

However, when installing Windows XP a person doesn't agree to Q&As, FAQs and documentation. A person agrees to the EULA and that is what is legally binding. If MS wanted to push the issue they could, argue the intent of the EULA is what is important rether than it's literal meaning, so it's a moot point to argue semantics anyhow.

No, but the Q&As, FAQs and documentation are all based on common questions that are asked to clarify the meaning of the EULA from OEM system builders, consumers, technicians, etc. which all point to needing a license for each installation.

I'm only pointing out the licensing requirements as we are "told" by MS, I don't necessarily agree with all of their requirements, however I do have to follow their EULA's in order to keep ourselves and our clients legal.

[ryan_975]

No, but the Q&As, FAQs and documentation are all based on common questions that are asked to clarify the meaning of the EULA from OEM system builders, consumers, technicians, etc. which all point to needing a license for each installation.

I'm only pointing out the licensing requirements as we are "told" by MS, I don't necessarily agree with all of their requirements, however I do have to follow their EULA's in order to keep ourselves and our clients legal.

But do we have to follow what MS intends the EULA to mean (e.g. 1 installation per machine per license) or what it says literally (e.g. one copy installed and running at one time per machine per license)?