Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jolly Roger Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Newsreaders Date: 13 Feb 2014 23:45:17 GMT Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates Lines: 86 Message-ID: References: <1srgsa-era1.ln1@news.chingola.ch> <090220141933138735%nospam@nospam.invalid> <1lh23vt.141fxjk16r5enyN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net fwYXAoVwwr50YUZThorZuw2qnB4Kp2fgfIxSNBdXtbU3A0EoVd Cancel-Lock: sha1:S2ZqP1lMvLRZDBglUesK4s1o6w8= X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-) User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:56520 On 2014-02-13, David Empson wrote: > MartinC wrote: > >> > In article , Király >> > wrote: >> > >> > for snow leopard: >> > ...you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use >> > and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple- branded >> > computer at a time. >> >> While I don't want to feed the debate, there is one single thing that I >> really wonder why nobody actually talks about it - neither the "EULA >> allows" nor the "EULA forbids" league. >> >> It's the term: "a single Apple-branded computer". >> >> To my best of knowledge, the whole idea of a VM is to run some software >> on a host system that prepares a sandbox for an idealized "virtual >> computer" that in turn then installs the guest system within. >> >> So (maybe) the question is: If Parallels or VMWare create such a virtual >> hardware within its software, is this software-created computer then "a >> single Apple-branded computer" ? >> >> Or is it rather something like "some Apple/Mac compatible computer that >> actually got built by some third party" (in this case Parallels/VMWare). >> >> Serious question (to those who know), could this be the actual trigger >> for all this problem with Myth vs. Reality? That Apple simply told >> VMWare and Parallels that it doesn't regard their software as an "Apple >> branded computer"? > > No, it can't be as simple as that, because the 10.6 Server EULA includes > the additional sentence: > > "You may also install and use other copies of Mac OS X Server Software > on the same Apple-branded computer, provided that you acquire an > individual and valid license from Apple for each of these other copies > of Mac OS X Server Software." > > This wording implies the "other copies" of 10.6 Server are being used on > the same computer as the first copy, which implies that the > "Apple-branded computer" wording in both the 10.6 and 10.6 Server EULAs > only covers the physical hardware, not the VM software used to enable > running other copies of 10.6 Server. > > Based on that interpretation I can't see how the 10.6 non-server EULA > disallows running 10.6 non-server in a VM, provided the host OS is not > also 10.6 (since there is no clause allowing multiple copies of the same > OS to be used at once), and provided the host hardware is an > Apple-branded computer. > > It appears that Apple's intention was to disallow the use of 10.6 > non-server in a VM, and to allow 10.6 Server, but they didn't word the > EULA very well. > > If taken literally, the 10.6 Server EULA only permits the use of 10.6 > Server in a VM if the host OS is also 10.6 Server. None of the VM > companies are forcing that restriction, and it appears that Apple > doesn't care about it either. > > On the other hand, the VM companies are at least making token efforts to > prevent the use of 10.6 non-server in a VM, despite the EULA not clearly > excluding this, and despite Parallels' claim that the restriction is > because of the EULA. > > Király changed my mind on this one - I now agree that the only reason > which makes sense is that there must be another licence agreement > between Apple and the VM companies (e.g. for Mac-compatible boot code), > which we haven't seen, and that licence agreement must be the one which > restricts the VM companies to only allow Server versions of 10.5 and > 10.6 in a VM. > > As for nospam's bafflement as to _why_ this restriction exists, I have a > theory on that as well, but out of time right now. Honestly, I couldn't give less of a shit either way. The bickering at this point far outweighs the reality of whether anyone like me would worry about it. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR