Microsoft may lift VM licensing restrictions next week
Don't tie me up with those ties, Ty
It may have finally dawned on Microsoft that its current software licensing restrictions kill one of the major benefits of virtualization — the ability to move a virtual machine freely about physical servers.
According to InfoWorld,, Microsoft may change its licensing policy from one where virtual machines are tied to hardware only to a model that complements the mobility of virtual machines. And a Microsoft spokesman reportedly said to expect the change as early as next Tuesday.
Currently a customer must reassign the license for software such as Windows Server 2003, SQL Server 2005, and Exchange Server 2007 if they want to move the code to a different physical server. Furthermore, Microsoft doesn't allow a transfer between physical hosts more than once every 90 days.
This policy has drawn its fair share of critics, including whitepaper grieving from VMware, which sells VMotion to shift its virtual machines around without downtime. Citrix also sells a similar solution with XenMotion.
Clearly, now that Microsoft is in the virtualization game itself, it needs to rethink the licensing model a bit. Microsoft currently lacks management software of its own for VM transfer magic — but says it's working on it.
Late to the party as usual, but if the report is true, it's a good sign progress is being made. ®
I love how microsoft operates...
This little maneuver has little to do with competition, or what VMware or Citrix is doing, or any whining by the aforementioned. This is a result of Microstupid realizing that they are losing potentially billions of dollars in sales because smart corporations avoid their server software like the plague due to its illegal and unenforceable software licensing model.
Microstupid, being a large machine / animal, is a little slow on the uptake, and thus moves even slower.
What this little maneuver signals is a realization by Microstupid that software is sold, not licensed, and this is an attempt to save face without admitting any wrong doing. There will be many more similar "licensing" changes to come in the not so distant future.
For reference see Verner vs Autodesk
Shucks, I hoped it might be the crazy Vista VM restictions being lifted
The other VM licensing issue is that MS don't allow you to use the basic versions of Vista in A VM.
As VM's are usually single purpose, obviously you want the smallest most nimble image that supports that purpose. You don't want to be forced to use an all singing & dancing version... Just another reason to stick with XP I guess.
"if you in charge of rack servers and your SMART drives are warning of read errors etc or any other technical problem, only a nerd would wait 90 days to move the code."
No, neither a nerd, nor a geek, would wait out the 90 days. A management tie-choked zombie would. You know, the kind with a wall full of corporate (un)ethics and economic diplomas, and less knowledge of computers than my cat's food. Any operations engineer worth more than 1% of their salary would do whatever it takes to keep their network running. Even if that included moving awfully close to the edge of violating the license text.