[SOLVED] Activation and Virtual Machines - Fact Check Please

[YrbkMgr]

Logic Check Please...

I give up, I can't noodle this out. I'm either Bruce Willis in Sixth Sense ("You mean it's me???"), or there's some kind of devilry afoot.

I can't see how these both can be true:

1. To be able to use Windows legally it is necessary to activate it with a license. Running two instances of the same license is fraudulent use. One machine, one license period. That's the deal.​

​

2. Macrium viBoot enables you to instantly create, start and manage and virtual Microsoft Hyper-V VirtualBox machines using one or more Macrium Reflect image files as the basis of the virtual machine storage sub-system. At a minimum, viBoot enables you to boot into the images you have made using Macrium Reflect, for validation purposes, or to retrieve data from old applications stored on a bootable image... Use it to create a copy of your live environment to test new software, or use it as a performance test platform as part of your Physical to Virtual rollout strategy​

So from an IF, THEN, ELSE perspective the second statement isn't a sanctioned use. Ipso facto, what would be the point of creating a virtual machine from a backup image? But I'm not done... creating a VM from a backup image is hardly novel, and from what I can tell, is common as house dirt. It's a widely cited use case.

It's never been more true that the soundest reasoning leads to the wrongest conclusions when the premises are false. With that in mind, I'd appreciate some input.

 

[Wolfshadw]

To be able to use Windows legally it is necessary to activate it with a license. Running two instances of the same license is fraudulent use. One machine, one license period. That's the deal.

Kind of a grey area here. People have been able to run Windows 10 without activation and without a license since it was released. This remains true today. I have one Windows 10 license. In theory I can have this machine and as many other systems with Windows 10 installed, but not activated and Microsoft won't complain. There are some limitations to running without activation, but the core functionality is there.

Macrium viBoot enables you to instantly create, start and manage and virtual Microsoft Hyper-V VirtualBox machines using one or more Macrium Reflect image files as the basis of the virtual machine storage sub-system. At a minimum, viBoot enables you to boot into the images you have made using Macrium Reflect, for validation purposes, or to retrieve data from old applications stored on a bootable image... Use it to create a copy of your live environment to test new software, or use it as a performance test platform as part of your Physical to Virtual rollout strategy

The idea here is that you're building a test environment which is never intended to be a long term situation. Install Windows 10, install your new software. Run through your test protocols, secure your findings, and then format the test system (removing the Windows install). I'm not sure how (or even if) Microsoft deals with activation in that scenario. Also understand that individual users generally do not build test environments. Corporate licensing may be different that individual/personal.

Hope this helps.

-Wolf sends

 

[TerryLaze]

You do have the right to change your license to a different PC, including VMs, as long as you follow the rules.
Basically if you only use your license on one system at a time it might not even trigger the activation check.
If you have a per device license (oem) it is locked in to your hardware and can't be activated on anything else including VMs, but users have reported that doing the automated windows activation procedure gets that working.
Also as already mentioned you can run windows 10 without a license for ever with some loss in function.

https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/terms/product/ForallSoftware/MCA

License Assignment and Reassignment
Before Customer uses software under a License, it must assign that License to a device or user, as appropriate. Customer may reassign a License to another device or user, but not less than 90 days since the last reassignment of that same License, unless the reassignment is due to (i) permanent hardware failure or loss, (ii) termination of the user’s employment or contract or (iii) temporary reallocation of CALs, Client Management Licenses and user or device SLs to cover a user’s absence or the unavailability of a device that is out of service. Customer must remove the software or block access from the former device or to the former user. SA coverage and any Licenses that are granted or acquired in connection with SA coverage may be reassigned only with the underlying qualifying License. Additional terms apply to the reassignment of Windows desktop operating system per device licenses, as detailed in the Windows Product Entry

 

[YrbkMgr]

Kind of a grey area here. People have been able to run Windows 10 without activation and without a license since it was released. This remains true today. I have one Windows 10 license. In theory I can have this machine and as many other systems with Windows 10 installed, but not activated and Microsoft won't complain. There are some limitations to running without activation, but the core functionality is there.


The idea here is that you're building a test environment which is never intended to be a long term situation. Install Windows 10, install your new software. Run through your test protocols, secure your findings, and then format the test system (removing the Windows install). I'm not sure how (or even if) Microsoft deals with activation in that scenario. Also understand that individual users generally do not build test environments. Corporate licensing may be different that individual/personal.

Hope this helps.

-Wolf sends

Thanks ever so much for the discussion. We agree that to legally use windows, license activation is required and only one activated license per machine, right? If you run a VM from a backup of the host, how is that not game over? As far as I can tell, the notion of running a vm created from a backup is malarkey. Worse, company's promoting that specific use know what the rules are - Acronis, Macrium, whomever... it's their business to know - it's not an oversight. Why is that?

Thoughts?

 

[Wolfshadw]

We agree that to legally use windows, license activation is required and only one activated license per machine, right?

Not quite. Again, you can run Windows 10 (indefinitely, so far) without activation (or license). Microsoft hasn't stopped anyone from doing this, so I can't really agree that it's "illegal". However, if you intend to activate a license, then yes. It is one license, one machine.

If you run a VM from a backup of the host, how is that not game over?

Now that I'm actually awake and brain cells are functioning, you do NOT need to activate Windows (require a license) in a virtual machine. One of our fellow moderators has been running Windows 10 without activation in a VM since it's release and it has never required a license. It gets all updates and minus customization, it's fully functional.

As far as I can tell, the notion of running a vm created from a backup is malarkey. Worse, company's promoting that specific use know what the rules are - Acronis, Macrium, whomever... it's their business to know - it's not an oversight. Why is that?

It's not so much a "backup" as it is an image of your current machine; the version of Windows you currently have installed plus any updates, as well as what other software you have installed. Again, the purpose here is to run a testbed for the sole reason of testing some other piece of software. You create the VM from the image. You install the new piece of software. You spend the next few days/weeks testing the new software. When you're done, you delete the VM. It's not intended to be a forever solution.

Since it appears that the VM may not require activation and since it's a short term solution, I don't see why Microsoft would have any issues with it.

-Wolf sends

 

[USAFRet]

Yes, that Unactivated VM testwould be me.
First installed Dec 8 2016. Never activated, as a test to see what happens over time.

Runs just the same as on regular hardware.

But....a VM is considered exactly the same as a hardware PC.
Want it fully activated means a valid license.



Making a "backup" of your install and running it in a VM?
No.
That is NO different than making a "backup" and installing it on different physical hardware.

If you want a backup Image for safekeeping, that is a whole other thing.
And should NOT be directly bootable within this same hardware.

 

[USAFRet]

Bottom line - One license, one system.
VM or physical.

 

[USAFRet]

So from an IF, THEN, ELSE perspective the second statement isn't a sanctioned use. Ipso facto, what would be the point of creating a virtual machine from a backup image? But I'm not done... creating a VM from a backup image is hardly novel, and from what I can tell, is common as house dirt. It's a widely cited use case.

Why?
To spin up several client systems, for a VM farm.

I've had that in my home dev environment.
One WinServer, and several client systems, talking to that server.

Of course, for full activation, each VM needs its own license.

 

[USAFRet]

Additionally, if you have a VLK, spinning up new VMs is no licensing issue at all.
Just tell the original install where the licensing server is, and every VM will know where to go for its licensing.

 

[TerryLaze]

Not quite. Again, you can run Windows 10 (indefinitely, so far) without activation (or license). Microsoft hasn't stopped anyone from doing this, so I can't really agree that it's "illegal".

While probably not outright illegal, the terms of use force you to agree to the license agreement and that states that you have to license the software.
But yes, MS has not actively taken any measures to stop anybody from using windows unlicensed.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use

Any software that is made available to download from the Services ("Software") is the copyrighted work of Microsoft and/or its suppliers. Use of the Software is governed by the terms of the end user license agreement, if any, which accompanies or is included with the Software ("License Agreement"). An end user will be unable to install any Software that is accompanied by or includes a License Agreement, unless he or she first agrees to the License Agreement terms. Third party scripts or code, linked to or referenced from this website, are licensed to you by the third parties that own such code, not by Microsoft.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/Useterms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

5. Authorized Software and Activation. You are authorized to use this software only if you are properly licensed and the software has been properly activated with a genuine product key or by other authorized method.
...
...
...
You may not bypass or circumvent activation

 

[YrbkMgr]

Can I just say... I love the discussion. Thoughtful, analytic, credible. Thank you...

So USAFRet & TerryLaze confirm the licensing situation. For the sake of clarity, I'm dividing the world into two pots, there's what you CAN do, and what you're ALLOWED to do. All tenured folks know how to get around roadblocks. I'm focusing on violation and remedies. Because of this guiding notion:

Just because you get away with something for a time, does not relieve you of the contractual commitment to honor the license terms. Consider this:

1. Running a virtual machine from a backup is not allowed. Technically, not even once, so when MS discover fraudulent use, just by you seeing what happens if you try to activate windows, they now know you.

2. They decide if, when, and to what extent... they can do whatever they want and will cancel the license so that neither machine can run Windows, and you have no recourse. Then you have to cough $200 for another license right now because Jurassic Park is offline. - you have to pay if you want to ride. Yeah, yeah, maybe ain't likely, but it would be irresponsible to ignore the potential - How many people in jail thought they were going to get caught. Saw a meme that went: chances are extremely low that your cat will kill you while you sleep, but never zero. I don't object to MS license - their house their rules. For me personally, there is no activity worth being on a sh*t list at MS. Screw that noise... for what? Experimenting with a VM for the first time?

So that's the "exposure" for anyone running two instances of the same licensed copy of windows. I'm like many who steals a piece of candy in the waiting room from time to time. We all assess the risks on some actuarial basis in making choices. Again though, this isn't about what you can get away with, it's having to get away with it in the first place.

USAFRetstated:

Of course, for full activation, each VM needs its own license.

That is the the criteria. That means, under no circumstances is it legal to run a VM created from a backup image (e.g., an MRIMG or TIB) . It is a license violation.

Companies like those two have smart people. Legal people. They know what the rules are. Why are they telling users that they can use viBoot to do something that is undeniably illegal? They aren't telling users that the feature is used when your system crashes and you want to run that VM on a different machine with a different license. They are saying:

viBoot enables you to boot into the images you have made using Macrium Reflect, for validation purposes, or to retrieve data from old applications stored on a bootable image

A reputable company, trusted, reliable, stalwart... have endorsed the use of a tool with instructions to use it in an unlawful way. With full knowledge of the impropriety of it. It's no different from giving someone burglar tools and showing them how to break in. That almost never goes as planned. If you told me I wouldn't believe it.

I didn't need Hyper-V, didn't know crap about it except a very high level understanding of the principle. Further, Reflect is on a very short list of trusted, reliable, mission critical applications for my home office. As a user of Reflect Home, it's not a leap to think that if they promote this capability, it's credible.

In 2019, I bought computer online, preinstalled win 10 home -> hey, what's viBoot? -> value proposition for the use case is compelling -> $100 upgrade to Pro -> Hyper-V installation -> Test drove first VM -> Okay, just as expected.

Now, the task - I needed a clean install of windows. I made a backup of "Boom Boom Laverne" (my main machine name) with Reflect. Did a clean install -> mounted the backup to transfer data files -> created VM from the backup before the clean install. I've spent two years of on and off tinkering and refining and cursing at the god of checkpoints, pouring over documentation and trying to understand terminology, forum questions - PITA to get this working. Painstaking frustration - I had to learn how a watch works just to tell the time. But, I finally got to a point where I was happy with the VM set up so that I could get on with what I intended to do.

The sole existence of the VM was intended as a mechanism to run applications installed on my old machine, similar to a portable app. Mostly Office and Multimedia Tools - nothing mission critical happens on that machine. Just a client on a home LAN booted up on an ad hoc basis.

Lo and behold, that VM isn't activated. Since the host is an OEM license, I can't even transfer the license to a VM. As I looked into it, as verified here, the use case is piracy. This is not anywhere in the documentation, knowledge base, or anywhere else. I had a hard time believing that I understood what was going on, which is why I came here.

Turns out, two years of wasted time. The mission was doomed before I ever left the house. I got the middle finger after all that. I feel all used and dirty now. Remember Lethal Weapon 2? The Drive-Thru

 

[USAFRet]

That is the the criteria. That means, under no circumstances is it legal to run a VM created from a backup image (e.g., an MRIMG or TIB) . It is a license violation.

Incorrect.

You can apply a new license to that VM, or if it is licensed under whatever Volume Licensing agreement you have.

 

[YrbkMgr]

Incorrect.

You can apply a new license to that VM, or if it is licensed under whatever Volume Licensing agreement you have.

Right, my bad. To be more accurate I should have qualified it with "without proper licensing". I'm not sure if it's still a copy of the host when applied. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, but I'm curious.

 

[USAFRet]

Macrium and the VM clone/image thing is only concerned with the Operation.
Thea activation/licensing is all up to you.

 

[YrbkMgr]

Macrium and the VM clone/image thing is only concerned with the Operation.
Thea activation/licensing is all up to you.

I appreciate the input. If I understand you right, since it's ultimately up to the user to be compliant with licensing, I have no one to blame but myself. I don't take issue with that if that's the case, that's on me to be sure. With that in mind, if that's not correct or at least approximately correct, I would be grateful for any clarity.

This entire exercise was an attempt at dispelling my disbelief that my use case was doomed from the beginning. I have a pretty reasonable competency behind the keyboard having been online since CompuServe and a 2400 baud modem. And while I certainly do have my PEBCAK scars, this one surprised me - I rarely make such a catestrophice blunder.

Just goes to show, that the soundest reasoning leads to the wrongest conclusions when the premises are false.

Mod Edit - Removed inappropriate content

 

[USAFRet]

There are multiple use cases where multiple identical VMs, spawned off a single install, are perfectly valid and legal.

A company engages in a Volume licensing agreement.
500 licenses.
350 actual users and physical systems.

3 dev teams and a QA testing team.
They might devote 20x VMs each to the dev teams for building things, and another 25 to the QA/testing team for their use.
All living on a couple large servers.
Said testing systems are then each given different client oles, to se what happens.
The systems, both hardware and VM, are only licensed if/when they talk to the companys key server.


Or on a smaller scale...
A few years ago, I had a TechNet subscription (before they cut it off). $300 initially, then $200/year after.
This granted multiple licenses for internal testing.
For each OS version, 2 licenses, 10 activations each.
So 20x installs of Win 7. Each version of Win 7.
20x for Win 7 Pro 64bit
20x for Win 7 Pro 32bit
20x for Win 7 Home 64bit
20x for Win 7 Home6 32bit

Probably $50k worth of licenses if they were Retail price.
The current MSDN program is similar.

Easy to spin up half a dozen absolutely identical VM instances, for my own personal testing. All talking to the same server instance. All perfectly valid and legal.

Again...the licensing is all up to you.

 

[YrbkMgr]

There are multiple use cases where multiple identical VMs, spawned off a single install, are perfectly valid and legal.

A company engages in a Volume licensing agreement.
500 licenses.
350 actual users and physical systems.

3 dev teams and a QA testing team.
They might devote 20x VMs each to the dev teams for building things, and another 25 to the QA/testing team for their use.
All living on a couple large servers.
Said testing systems are then each given different client oles, to se what happens.
The systems, both hardware and VM, are only licensed if/when they talk to the companys key server.


Or on a smaller scale...
A few years ago, I had a TechNet subscription (before they cut it off). $300 initially, then $200/year after.
This granted multiple licenses for internal testing.
For each OS version, 2 licenses, 10 activations each.
So 20x installs of Win 7. Each version of Win 7.
20x for Win 7 Pro 64bit
20x for Win 7 Pro 32bit
20x for Win 7 Home 64bit
20x for Win 7 Home6 32bit

Probably $50k worth of licenses if they were Retail price.
The current MSDN program is similar.

Easy to spin up half a dozen absolutely identical VM instances, for my own personal testing. All talking to the same server instance. All perfectly valid and legal.

Again...the licensing is all up to you.

I understand that, although appreciate the detail. I should clarify that my gripe isn't about the rules. I have no issue with Windows licensing requirements. None. I'm making a distinction between expectations in a professional or enterprise level environment with virtualization, and software developed specifically for a less competent user.

I don't have a lot of experience but the consensus I've gleaned over the past couple of years is that no self-respecting IT professional would ever use viBoot to create a VM in the first place. In fact, I don't mind telling you that I've gotten no love in other forums simply because of the disdain for my use of viBoot. I get that - why would anyone who is competent with Hyper-V or Virtual Box use a hack like viBoot? Again though, that's not who Reflect Home is targeted at.

Consider this... didn't know anything about virtualization. Macrium promoted the use of viBoot to create a VM from a previous backup image. "Look how you can use our technology to do this cool thing, and it's easy!" That's worth checking into. Knowledge base, user documentation, hell there's even a comprehensive tutorial in the TenForums all explaining how to and how cool it is to take yesterday's backup image and run that VM.

I don't think it's out of line to say "why the hell didn't anyone mention it?" Surely, if it's an issue, it would be in the documentation. If it isn't, is that all on the user? For something as critical as a Windows license when using their product for that application - seems like it would be documented somewhere, if for no other reason, just to make sure.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything - We all know who is liable for license violations. I'm simply posing the question: In my shoes, armed with that information, you wouldn't be disappointed?

 

[USAFRet]

Will a VM, or even a second system, run with the exact same config and license?
Sure, for a while.

Eventually, the activation servers will catch up, and one or the other will become Unactivated.
1 license, 1 system.

 

[TerryLaze]

I understand that, although appreciate the detail. I should clarify that my gripe isn't about the rules. I have no issue with Windows licensing requirements. None. I'm making a distinction between expectations in a professional or enterprise level environment with virtualization, and software developed specifically for a less competent user.

I don't have a lot of experience but the consensus I've gleaned over the past couple of years is that no self-respecting IT professional would ever use viBoot to create a VM in the first place. In fact, I don't mind telling you that I've gotten no love in other forums simply because of the disdain for my use of viBoot. I get that - why would anyone who is competent with Hyper-V or Virtual Box use a hack like viBoot? Again though, that's not who Reflect Home is targeted at.

Consider this... didn't know anything about virtualization. Macrium promoted the use of viBoot to create a VM from a previous backup image. "Look how you can use our technology to do this cool thing, and it's easy!" That's worth checking into. Knowledge base, user documentation, hell there's even a comprehensive tutorial in the TenForums all explaining how to and how cool it is to take yesterday's backup image and run that VM.

I don't think it's out of line to say "why the hell didn't anyone mention it?" Surely, if it's an issue, it would be in the documentation. If it isn't, is that all on the user? For something as critical as a Windows license when using their product for that application - seems like it would be documented somewhere, if for no other reason, just to make sure.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything - We all know who is liable for license violations. I'm simply posing the question: In my shoes, armed with that information, you wouldn't be disappointed?

Sure on one hand it would be nice if they would at least state "each instance of windows has to be licensed" or "licensing applies" or whatever but on the other hand would you expect a steak knife in a super market to have a label saying "it's illegal to kill anybody with this" ? "common law still applies" ?

Basically any user of windows is expected to have read the EULA, I know practically 0 percent actually have ever even glanced over it, but any company selling software on windows expects the windows EULA to be common knowledge.

 

[YrbkMgr]

Sure on one hand it would be nice if they would at least state "each instance of windows has to be licensed" or "licensing applies" or whatever but on the other hand would you expect a steak knife in a super market to have a label saying "it's illegal to kill anybody with this" ? "common law still applies" ?

Basically any user of windows is expected to have read the EULA, I know practically 0 percent actually have ever even glanced over it, but any company selling software on windows expects the windows EULA to be common knowledge.

I don't disagree with you. It is well established that activation is required for each machine, virtual or otherwise. Here's where I'm stuck:

Macrium viBoot is now built upon new technology that allows it to instantly present a Macrium Reflect image file as a Microsoft Virtual Disk to instantly create, start and manage virtual machines using one or more Macrium Reflect image files as the basis of the virtual machine storage sub-system.

That paragraph, knowing what you know, don't you agree that it's a stupid idea? It means that Macrium are promoting barnyard windage, and therefore not credible.

Documentation, knowledgebase, video demonstrations, dedicated sections in their forum with over a dozen mods that are subject matter experts, corporate customer support, endorsements from other subject matter experts - seems to me to be an awful lot of resources poured into an idea that just isn't practical. Wouldn't the cognoscenti have pointed it out?

Does anyone else see banana's in coconut trees here?

 

[USAFRet]

I don't disagree with you. It is well established that activation is required for each machine, virtual or otherwise. Here's where I'm stuck:

Macrium viBoot is now built upon new technology that allows it to instantly present a Macrium Reflect image file as a Microsoft Virtual Disk to instantly create, start and manage virtual machines using one or more Macrium Reflect image files as the basis of the virtual machine storage sub-system.

That paragraph, knowing what you know, don't you agree that it's a stupid idea? It means that Macrium are promoting barnyard windage, and therefore not credible.

Documentation, knowledgebase, video demonstrations, dedicated sections in their forum with over a dozen mods that are subject matter experts, corporate customer support, endorsements from other subject matter experts - seems to me to be an awful lot of resources poured into an idea that just isn't practical. Wouldn't the cognoscenti have pointed it out?

Does anyone else see banana's in coconut trees here?

As said...Operation is different than Licensing.

That Macrium function works just fine, and says nothing about how your systems are licensed.

 

[YrbkMgr]

As said...Operation is different than Licensing.

That Macrium function works just fine, and says nothing about how your systems are licensed.

I don't disagree. No one disputes the operation. I'm asking if you would agree that licensing makes "on the fly" virtualization of previous machine states (plural) too prohibitive to be practical for a Home user - or put another way. a stupid idea.

If that's true, Macrium is promoting horse hockey. Is there another way to see it?

I love Macrium. They're above reproach in that regard and it would be way out of character. It can't be true, somebody check my homework. I knew you guys would be able to clarify licenses in virtualization. A journeyman checking his work, saying out loud, "hey, that look right to you?"

 

[USAFRet]

I don't disagree. No one disputes the operation. I'm asking if you would agree that licensing makes "on the fly" virtualization of previous machine states (plural) too prohibitive to be practical for a Home user - or put another way. a stupid idea.

If that's true, Macrium is promoting horse hockey. Is there another way to see it?

I love Macrium. They're above reproach in that regard and it would be way out of character. It can't be true, somebody check my homework. I knew you guys would be able to clarify licenses in virtualization. A journeyman checking his work, saying out loud, "hey, that look right to you?"

As a 'home user', spinning up and using an identical VM is very much of a niche use case.
And in that niche, the user would be expected to know the licensing issues.

To 98% of people,if you speak the term 'virtulization'....you're speaking Greek.
Indeed...even among the hopefully technos that come here...I have to explain, in great detail, the difference between Clone, Image, VM, and when each may be applicable or not applicable.

 

[YrbkMgr]

As a 'home user', spinning up and using an identical VM is very much of a niche use case.
And in that niche, the user would be expected to know the licensing issues.

To 98% of people,if you speak the term 'virtulization'....you're speaking Greek.
Indeed...even among the hopefully technos that come here...I have to explain, in great detail, the difference between Clone, Image, VM, and when each may be applicable or not applicable.

Thank you. You've helped me a bunch, and I'm grateful for it.