Hardware "hash" within virtualbox

No. You might laugh now and think I'm just a stupid old fart (been used to be ignored and laughed because of my opinion ) but I need constantly to know everything I'm doing with my computers is 100% "kosher", valid and legal so I do nothing to try to work around this kind of obstacles. I'd rather have a valid license for every rig or vm than try to keep them activated using workarounds.

Kari

:) Well said.

I honestly believe this means, and is intented to be so, that if you clone a vm to be used on another rig or OS, the old one is no longer used.

For instance in my opinion and according to Windows 7 EULA every dual boot setup with two instances of Seven both with the same product key is not valid, not allowed. This extract from Seven EULA:

...
2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS.
a. One Copy per Computer. You may install one copy of the software on one computer. That computer is the “licensed computer.”
...

I know a lot of us geeks have a dual boot setup with two instances of Seven. As far as both instances have a separate key it's OK; using the same key is OK only if the second instance is activated using the key only after you have stopped using the first instance, for instance in situations where you are setting Windows in a new HD first making a dual boot setup and installing a new instance, then transferring you files and apps from old instance to new, finally discarding the old one and activating the new one.

In the same spirit, using a clone of an activated Windows instance in a new vm is only OK if the old vm is no longer needed. Defending the use of two instances activated with same key saying that I use only one at the time is for me not a valid excuse, and most certainly not in accordance with EULA. To simplify things a bit, it would be almost the same than buying a legal Windows 7 with mates, then everyone installs it to their own computers activating it with the same key, finally making a schedule to guarantee that only one of the gang is using his / her computer in any given time, only one instance of activated Windows used.

This, of course, is just how I interpret Windows 7 EULA. There are several threads on the Seven Forums where these kind of issues are discussed. Nowadays I try to stay away from those threads because I know my comments and opinions would be taken as provocation. I have to admit, I could be too provocative, too, so better to stay away from those threads .

However, my answers to you earlier in this thread are not solely based on my opinion. As my screenshot showed, I have also tested different scenarios to emphasize my point and be as sure about facts as possible before responding.

Kari

dhruv17singhal said:

In that case, one must destroy the old VM after cloning it. (Well, that's not bad, especially if we are using the virtual system merely for testing, and is not emotionally attachment to the old VM !)

I slightly disagree. Even I as a tighta** old fart accept using common sense. Cloning an OS for instance to transfer it to a new rig / vm and taking the time needed to check everything works before discarding the old one is my approach. I am, or rather my wicked moral code is happy as far as I know only one instance is going to be used and old one discarded or other ways "de-activated" after the operation is fulfilled and completed.

:) Kari