On 9/01/2010, at 10:35 AM, Peter Gold wrote: > Hi, Alan: > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Alan T Litchfield <alan at alphabyte.co.nz > > wrote: >> >> On 8/01/2010, at 11:08 AM, Peter Gold wrote: >> >>> The question, I guess, is about how Windows handles this. It's quite >>> possible that authorizing an Adobe installed product may not be a >>> problem across different VMs on the same physical computer, if the >>> popular notion that the physical hard disk information is keyed to >>> authorization. >>> >> >> >> Good point Peter. Is authorisation against each CPU address, mac >> address, or >> the software system? Only the license agreement can answer that >> question and >> they vary considerably across software publishers and their products. >> >> I would have thought that the authorisation was handled by the Adobe >> authorisation application (you know, that's the buggy one that so >> often >> fails and requires people to install components, reinstall >> applications, or >> even their whole system) rather than Windows itself. Once it had been >> installed on first-install and authorised then any subsequent >> reinstallations ought to be regarded as reinstalls rather than as >> duplicate >> installations. To be safe (license-wise) perhaps the tests can be >> run in >> series and not in parallel? > > It's pretty clear that the kiwi culture is shaping your thoughts. > "Test in series or parallel?" is the kind of question that, to my > mind, falls into (or parallels) the question "is it more efficient to > herd these sheep to the shearing pen in single file or 32-abreast?"<G> >
LOL, probably ;) > I agree that the popular idea in most places it's mentioned in public, > is that Adobe product authorization is keyed to the ID information of > what appears to be the physical drive it's installed on. Right. So the emulated OS would identify itself according to the partition label assigned to it? > I haven't > tried to out-fox it (watch those sheep if you do<G>). Ahh but we were not plagued with them, unlike our Ozzie cousins. Instead we got lawyers :} > > I'd suggest searching Google for all terms that relate to activating > Adobe applications. I don't expect that FrameMaker activation > mechanism is different from InDesign's; IOW, some or all of my > InDesign experience may apply to FrameMaker activations. > > Yes, and I think relates back to the OP issue. Alan -- Alan T Litchfield AlphaByte PO Box 141, Auckland, 1140 New Zealand http://www.alphabyte.co.nz http://www.alphabyte.co.nz/beatrice