Oh, wow. They've also changed the license a couple of times in 2016 and 2017 to make it more restrictive. Early 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/2016041107081

Oh, wow. They've also changed the license a couple of times in 2016 and 2017 to make it more restrictive. Early 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160411070811/https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/VirtualBox_PUEL https://web.archive.org/web/20160411070811/https://www.virtu... Late 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20161208112443/https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/VirtualBox_PUEL https://web.archive.org/web/20161208112443/https://www.virtu... Current, last changed July 2017: https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/VirtualBox_PUEL https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/VirtualBox_PUEL In the earlier licenses, "personal use" was just defined as the person using it being the same person as who installed it, and only one person remotely accessing the desktop at a time. So I had interpreted this as being OK for developer VMs in which the developer installs it themselves and uses it for their own development purposes. It also contained an "evaluation use" with a vaguely defined period. The current license now defines "personal use" as explicitly non-commercial use, and adds more restrictions on client access that applies to any type of clients and not just remote desktop access, as well as explicitly defining the evaluation use period to being 30 days. So while I didn't really have a concern about developers using VirtualBox with the extension pack previously, given the new license and the fact that they seem to be enforcing it via phoning home, it looks like it's time to set a policy of no one using it. Luckily, we've already pretty much transitioned everything over to libvirt/KVM on Linux hosts, and people have generally been using VMWare or VMWare Fusion on Windows and Mac hosts.