XP and Vista question

[Peter Alcibiades]

I doubt whether the restrictions on virtualisation are valid and legally 
enforceable.

If you have bought a retail copy of Vista, I believe MS will have no legal 
authority to tell you what you can and cannot run it on.  This is because, at 
least in the EU, post sales restrictions on use are anti-competitive and thus 
unenforceable.

However, MS can certainly tell you not to run more than one copy at once, 
because to do that would violate copyright.   So if you do run it in virtual 
mode, that copy must be the only copy.  They can also make it detect a 
virtual environment and refuse to boot, if that is technically possible.  But 
to stop a use purely by post sales restrictions on use, where that use is 
technically possible - its very dubious.

I believe that whatever the EULA says on this is immaterial, not because EULA 
conditions are not binding.  They may be, depending on what they are.  But 
because these particular conditions cannot be binding whether in a EULA or 
anything else.

In the same way, a car company cannot forbid you to use the car you have 
bought for hire, or to drive in Spain, or to use with tires other than a 
certain brand.  They can of course void your warranty if you do some things 
which have reasonable bearing on warranties.  But they can't forbid it.  A CD 
company cannot make you buy a particular brand of player to be legally able 
to play their CDs.  Tesco cannot force you to use their herbs with the steaks 
they sell, or only grill them in Tesco pans.  Or never share one 
labelled 'one dinner' between two.   And so on.

The position is similar with MacOS.  I don't believe Apple, purely by a post 
sales restriction on use, can get enforceable ability to stop you running X 
on whatever machine you want, as long as you do not violate copyright.  There 
may be other ways in which they can stop you.  And they can 'persuade' 
companies like Parallels not to support virtualisation of X.

The same is also true of Office:  I believe MS cannot prevent you from running 
it under Wine, and cannot insist you run it under a copy of Windows.

I also believe that when you buy a retail copy of any of these things, you 
have participated in a sale, and have not met the legal conditions of simply 
licensing the product.  Just as when you buy a steak.  No, you didn't license 
a one time use of that steak, you bought it.

If considering getting involved in court proceedings on this one, please take 
expert legal advice and do research first, don't rely on the above.   This is 
just lay opinion.  But also, don't assume without checking that every EULA 
clause is enforceable in every jurisdiction.  They may not be.  And just 
because a company calls it a license, don't assume automatically it is not 
legally a sale.  It may be.  Its a minefield out there, and it all needs 
checking, and you cannot confidently take a supplier's word for what your 
rights are or are not without making sure he is not pulling a fast one.

Peter