Bruce Chambers said:
No, you don't have to purchase two licenses for Vista Ultimate. But you do have to purchase a separate Windows (whatever version
you like) for each computer, if you want to use a Microsoft OS.
Just as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA
and U.S. copyright law
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each
computer on which it is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law to determine final applicability in your locale.)
The only way in which WinXP licensing differs from that of earlier versions of Windows is that Microsoft has finally added a copy
protection and anti-theft mechanism, Product Activation, to prevent (or at least make more difficult) multiple installations using
a single license.
Of course it's niot true. Never, ever, listen to whomever told you that again. He is either a liar or woefully ignorant; either
way, he's certainly no reliable source of information.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell
The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
Maybe it's just me, but, that answer seems incorrect. It's an interesting subject to me.
It seems to me the answer to that question would depend not only on the definition of the word "license", but also on the definition
of the words "location" and "computer". IE, one who has purchased 666 Basic Home licenses is licensed, for example, to run 666
copies of Home Basic, but may have only 2 machines, which are at one physical location. That one may then choose to run two machines
concurrently, at the same location. One may then even choose to purchase a terminal server license (should there be such a critter
in the Vista server product lines), & run 1 (server) machine with 666 Basic Home concurrent logins or one machine single use & one
(server) machine with 665 concurrent logins. In such cases, the Home Basic licensing would allow use of more than one "computer at a
location" (or so it seems). The "computer" usually means machine plus (pre?) installed software with license & the terms are
whatever the licensor put in it, which typically is one license per computer. One could purchase additional licenses, additional
machines, other computers etc., & use them as he/she sees fit.
Licenses vary.
The concept of licensing model & so on adds interesting opportunities for consumer exploitation, it seems to me, but can be useful
when the constraint is a limited budget. One who is licensed for one model may be presented with products of value on the other
model; one licensed for the other may be presented with products for the one (a form of attack). One who has server for each model
may find that question only shows up likely abuse issues. & of course, license "models" evolve & devolve.
Most pre-built machines come with a vendor provided license, these days, unless one is simply buying computer parts. I build my own
machines, so most of my OS purchases are retail packages or purchases from online stores, some of whom are volume license vendors.
Some OS can be downloaded & are licensed as free to use. But most of the people I know purchase, then discard (rarely selling or
giving away) the purchased machines when problems make them hate their machines. They then purchase new, prebuilt machines or
minimize their usage of their machines. It's sort of like the "rinse & repeat" of shampooing. Anyway, in the event of some machine
issues which arise, the fact they bought the machine means they also bought the license that accompanies it, whether or not efforts
to get the vendor to cooperate in the restoration of that license succeed. The right is intact if not the might to enforce it.
I've read on some machines that the vendor provided license with that machine is good for only that machine & goes when the machine
goes. I've never read that the purchase of an additional, licensed machine voids preexisting licenses. However, the opposite is true
when one purchases one's own operating systems separately from the machine. The license included with that is portable in the sense
that if it is not installed & used on one machine, it may be installed & used on another. In some cases, it can be on two physical
machines (useful for testing, etc.), but only one of the machines may be used at any particular time. Licenses vary in their terms,
but in general, that is how most licenses read on the retail shelves. Some licenses (Microsoft Office?) may be installed & used on a
primary or base machine & on one laptop or portable machine, also. Upgrade licenses may in fact require the existence of a
preexisting, full install license to be used.
The fact is no one answer fits all. If I buy two computers with preinstalled operating systems, then it's unlikely I'd not expect
the use of both machines at a location of my choosing even if I didn't read every line of the license (not to be confused with an
agreement, which it rarely is). In fact, it seems unlikely a vendor would (but "could" with questionable enforceability, I suppose)
include in a purchased license agreement that the purchase of an additional machine would void the license on any preexisting
machines, except in some conditions like temporary licensing of trial software or perhaps academic software intended as starter
software. Such license agreements are conceivable (which is my point), for example, if I were marketing a machine type for someone &
provided them with a sort of license stub so they could start the machine & get online, try & decide about operating systems, then
choose & buy. I did read at a Microsoft site once that one could "try" a Basic install, that it would revert to a basic model after
a fixed number of days of usage requiring a purchase decision or restore of the previous operating environment.
Generally, though, the need for a big "license agreement" to pop up with this or that installation most often seems to suggest to me
that there is something in the "license agreement" which, if read & thoroughly understood, would most likely be a deal-breaker or at
least a matter to give pause (time is valuable, too), so one should agree to as few of them & install as little of the software
which requires them as possible.
Who polices the license police?
However, sometimes a sort of electronic theft (which is the electronic equivalent of identity theft) could take place in which one
who is not a rights owner impersonates one who is, running on the misappropriated credentials, confusing (by design?) licensing &
license counting software. The mechanisms of that are beyond the question, but the question about usage & many like it proceed from
the sort of harassment that such attacks produce.
