Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #72999 > unrolled thread

Dumb Question about SL server.

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Dumb Question about SL server. Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 08:15 -0600
    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-10 15:27 +0000
      Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 10:07 -0600
        Re: Dumb Question about SL server. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-10 13:19 -0400
          Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-10 13:33 -0400
            Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 11:44 -0600
              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-10 13:52 -0400
              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-10 14:57 -0400
                Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 08:00 -0600
                  Re: Dumb Question about SL server. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-11 14:18 -0400
                    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-11 22:05 +0000
                      Re: Dumb Question about SL server. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-11 18:13 -0400
                        Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-12 02:23 +0000
                          Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 10:14 -0600
              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-04-11 11:05 +0000
              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-11 11:38 +0000
                Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 07:58 -0600
                Re: Dumb Question about SL server. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-11 13:59 -0400
                  Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-04-11 18:30 +0000
                    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2015-04-11 15:08 -0500
                      Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-04-11 23:21 +0000
                        Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 19:29 -0400
        Re: Dumb Question about SL server. billy@MIX.COM - 2015-04-13 23:47 +0000
          Re: Dumb Question about SL server. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-04-14 06:13 +0000
            Re: Dumb Question about SL server. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-14 04:27 -0400
              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-14 11:19 -0400
                Re: Dumb Question about SL server. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-14 11:46 -0400
                  Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Király <ggrandish@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 12:15 -0700
                    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-14 15:50 -0400
                      Re: Dumb Question about SL server. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-14 16:37 -0400
                        Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-15 00:38 +0000
                          Re: Dumb Question about SL server. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-04-15 01:43 +0000
                            Re: Dumb Question about SL server. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-14 22:00 -0400
                              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-15 08:48 +0000
                              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-15 11:29 -0400
                                Re: Dumb Question about SL server. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-15 15:19 -0400
                                  Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-15 20:51 -0400
                                    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-16 10:19 +0000
                                    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-04-16 12:54 -0400
                                      Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-16 20:36 -0400
                      Re: Dumb Question about SL server. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-04-15 00:14 +0000
                    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. billy@MIX.COM - 2015-04-14 22:02 +0000
                      Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-15 11:22 -0400
              Re: Dumb Question about SL server. billy@MIX.COM - 2015-04-14 15:26 +0000
            Re: Dumb Question about SL server. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-14 11:14 -0400
    Re: Dumb Question about SL server. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-10 13:15 -0400

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#73116

On 2015-04-11, David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 11 April 2015 18:30 -0000, 
>  in article <cot7ieFhd9kU1@mid.individual.net>, 
>  Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-04-11, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>>> Does this mean that one could run OS-X Server (Snow Leopard) on a 
>>> ASUS server running VMware ?
>
>> Why would you want to?  I'm given to understand that OS/X Server is 
>> unsupported.
>
> Your understanding leaves much to be desired.

Is it absolutely necessary to be a patronising cunt, or do you do
it for some other reason?

Still, the fact you PGP sign your postings always made me suspect you
were an arse. Your arrogance merely confirms it.

-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 28th day of Discord in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73120

In article <cotojgFllicU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2015-04-11, David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, 11 April 2015 18:30 -0000, 
> >  in article <cot7ieFhd9kU1@mid.individual.net>, 
> >  Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-04-11, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>> Does this mean that one could run OS-X Server (Snow Leopard) on a 
> >>> ASUS server running VMware ?
> >
> >> Why would you want to?  I'm given to understand that OS/X Server is 
> >> unsupported.
> >
> > Your understanding leaves much to be desired.
> 
> Is it absolutely necessary to be a patronising cunt, or do you do
> it for some other reason?
> 
> Still, the fact you PGP sign your postings always made me suspect you
> were an arse. Your arrogance merely confirms it.

David's been around for a while; PGP-signing has gone out of fashion 
(especially with the cute-kitten and you-won't 
believe-what-happened-next crowd, not to mention the 
haters-gonna-haters) but it's still a valid and useful thing to do. You 
can't have enough privacy and validation. 

Careful, dood, he'll issue a UDP on your NNTP host ...
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73214

Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> writes:

> On an unrelated note, I'm curious as to why Apple allows the server
> version to be virtualized but not the client.

That's just the way licensing for each fell, so to speak.  Apple has
not amended the OS 10.6 client license, and the virtualization vendors
are following it.  VMWare did mistakenly do a release that ran the 10.6
client, but that only lasted about four days.  Heh.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73226

billy@mix.com wrote:
> Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On an unrelated note, I'm curious as to why Apple allows the server
> > version to be virtualized but not the client.
> 
> That's just the way licensing for each fell, so to speak.  Apple has
> not amended the OS 10.6 client license, and the virtualization vendors
> are following it.  VMWare did mistakenly do a release that ran the 10.6
> client, but that only lasted about four days.  Heh.

It's a myth that the Snow Leopard client end user license agreement does 
not allow virtulaization. There is no prohibition against it in the 
license agreement, and Apple has never said that virtualization is 
prohibited.

None of the virtual machine companies support it though, presumably 
because Apple told them not to as a condition of licensing them the boot 
ROM code. But that's between them and Apple, not between Apple and the 
end user.

Anyway, it's of little consequence now, since the fully supported Snow 
Leopard Server's price is $22 instead of $500, so there's little reason 
for any end user to try and shoehorn SL client into a virtual machine 
anymore.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73229

In article <mgib61$ela$1@dont-email.me>, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca>
wrote:

> > > On an unrelated note, I'm curious as to why Apple allows the server
> > > version to be virtualized but not the client.
> > 
> > That's just the way licensing for each fell, so to speak.  Apple has
> > not amended the OS 10.6 client license, and the virtualization vendors
> > are following it.  VMWare did mistakenly do a release that ran the 10.6
> > client, but that only lasted about four days.  Heh.
> 
> It's a myth that the Snow Leopard client end user license agreement does 
> not allow virtulaization. There is no prohibition against it in the 
> license agreement, and Apple has never said that virtualization is 
> prohibited.

it's not a myth. the license agreement for snow leopard prohibits
virtualizing it. run it past a lawyer if you think otherwise.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73235

In article <140420150427152055%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <mgib61$ela$1@dont-email.me>, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca>
> wrote:
> 
> > > > On an unrelated note, I'm curious as to why Apple allows the server
> > > > version to be virtualized but not the client.
> > > 
> > > That's just the way licensing for each fell, so to speak.  Apple has
> > > not amended the OS 10.6 client license, and the virtualization vendors
> > > are following it.  VMWare did mistakenly do a release that ran the 10.6
> > > client, but that only lasted about four days.  Heh.
> > 
> > It's a myth that the Snow Leopard client end user license agreement does 
> > not allow virtulaization. There is no prohibition against it in the 
> > license agreement, and Apple has never said that virtualization is 
> > prohibited.
> 
> it's not a myth. the license agreement for snow leopard prohibits
> virtualizing it. run it past a lawyer if you think otherwise.

The SL EULA is at 

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/osx_snow_leopard_sec_upd.pdf

I searched for "virtual" and there were no matches.

However, you can apparently only run it on a VM running on an Apple 
computer, not a generic PC. It says:

You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any 
non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73237

In article <barmar-1DBAB5.11194214042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <140420150427152055%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <mgib61$ela$1@dont-email.me>, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > > > On an unrelated note, I'm curious as to why Apple allows the server
> > > > > version to be virtualized but not the client.
> > > > 
> > > > That's just the way licensing for each fell, so to speak.  Apple has
> > > > not amended the OS 10.6 client license, and the virtualization vendors
> > > > are following it.  VMWare did mistakenly do a release that ran the 10.6
> > > > client, but that only lasted about four days.  Heh.
> > > 
> > > It's a myth that the Snow Leopard client end user license agreement does 
> > > not allow virtulaization. There is no prohibition against it in the 
> > > license agreement, and Apple has never said that virtualization is 
> > > prohibited.
> > 
> > it's not a myth. the license agreement for snow leopard prohibits
> > virtualizing it. run it past a lawyer if you think otherwise.
> 
> The SL EULA is at 
> 
> http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/osx_snow_leopard_sec_upd.pdf
> 
> I searched for "virtual" and there were no matches.
> 
> However, you can apparently only run it on a VM running on an Apple 
> computer, not a generic PC. It says:
> 
> You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any 
> non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so.

compare snow leopard client versus server and then with lion.

for snow leopard client, it's one copy per mac for either single user
or family pack. there is nothing in it about additional copies or a
virtual machine.

for snow leopard server, additional copies per mac are allowed with an
additional license. although it doesn't specifically say how, the
obvious way to do that would be with a virtual machine. 

lion has a clause that is not present in snow leopard that specifically
refers to virtual machines, and also that it be obtained from the mac
app store. it also restricts what can be done with it when used in a
vm.

<http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/osx_snow_leopard_sec_upd.pdf>
  2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.

  A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
  License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Upgrade license
  for the Apple Software, 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. You agree not to install,
  use or run the Apple Software on any non- Apple-branded computer, or
  to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple
  Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may
  not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could
  be used by multiple computers at the same time.

  B. Family Pack License. If you have purchased a Family Pack license,
  then subject to the terms and conditions of this License, you are
  granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one
  (1) copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5)
  Apple-branded computers at a time as long as those computers are
  located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that
  same household. By "household" we mean a person or persons who share
  the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home or
  condominium, but shall also extend to student members who are primary
  residents of that household but residing at a separate on-campus
  location. The Family Pack License does not extend to business or
  commercial users.

<http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/osx_snow_leopard_server_sec_upd.
pdf>
  2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. 
  
  A. Mac OS X Server Software. Subject to the terms and conditions of
  this License, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to
  install and use one copy of the Mac OS X Server software (the ³Mac OS
  X Server Software²) on a single Apple-branded computer. 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. 


<http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx107.pdf>
  (iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or
  instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system
  environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already
  running the Apple Software.

also for lion, it states:
  The grant set forth in Section 2B(iii) above does not permit you to
  use the virtualized copies or instances of the Apple Software in
  connection with service bureau, time-sharing, terminal sharing or
  other similar types of services.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73240

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 8:46:35 AM UTC-7, nospam wrote:
> compare snow leopard client versus server and then with lion.

Not necessary. What other license agreements may or may not say does not
matter; their SLAs do not apply to 10.6.

> for snow leopard client, it's one copy per mac for either single user
> or family pack. there is nothing in it about additional copies or a
> virtual machine.

Nobody said anything about additional copies. If I am installing a single
copy of Snow Leopard on a Mac, with no other copies of it installed, I am
not violating any part of the SLA, whether the installation is in a virtual 
machine or not.

> lion has a clause that is not present in snow leopard that specifically
> refers to virtual machines

The clause allows one run multiple copies of it on the same Mac. That's not
what the OP wanted to do with Snow Leopard. He only wanted to install one copy. 

> it also restricts what can be done with it when used in a vm.

Yes it does, and it is notable that the Snow Leopard SLA does not contain any
such restrictions.

The idea that the Snow Leopard SLA prohibits the end user from installing it
into a virtual machine on a Mac with no other copies of Snow Leopard installed
is a myth. It was created by somebody who was looking for an explanation of
why the VM companies do not support Snow Leopard client in their VMs and floated
that end user SLA idea without ever reading the license. It has grown into one
of the most pervasive bits of computer folklore ever. It simply isn't true.

The virtual machine companies are not prohibiting Snow Leopard client
installations because of end user SLAs. They are simply not in the business of
enforcing end user SLAs. If they were in that business, they would prohibit
the installation of 10.7, 10.8, and 10.9 virtual machines on a Mac that is
running OS X 10.10, because doing any of those is a violation of their
respective software license agreements. But they don't prohibit that, because 
that's not their business. That's between Apple and the end user and is up to
the end user to follow.

There is some other reason that the VM companies do not permit the installation
of Snow Leopard client into their VMs, and it must have to do with some
licensing agreement that they have with Apple. None of these agreements have
ever been made public. In any case, we the end users are not party to any such
agreements and are not bound by them.

Anyway, this horse has been beaten to death, the myth has been debunked years 
ago, and those who keep dragging it up should give it a rest already. Especially
those of you with the "go ask a lawyer" remarks. You are the ones making an
unsubstantiated claim that the Snow Leopard license says something that it does
not, and the burden of proof is on you to go find a lawyer to back up your
claim, not the other way around.

Snow Leopard is now obsoleted software anyway - Apple doesn't even support it
anymore.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73241

In article <8aee394f-e329-4463-a615-c86904df27d2@googlegroups.com>,
Király <ggrandish@gmail.com> wrote:

> > compare snow leopard client versus server and then with lion.
> 
> Not necessary. What other license agreements may or may not say does not
> matter; their SLAs do not apply to 10.6.

it shows that there's a difference between the various licenses.

it also helps non-lawyers understand the legalese.

> > for snow leopard client, it's one copy per mac for either single user
> > or family pack. there is nothing in it about additional copies or a
> > virtual machine.
> 
> Nobody said anything about additional copies. If I am installing a single
> copy of Snow Leopard on a Mac, with no other copies of it installed, I am
> not violating any part of the SLA, whether the installation is in a virtual 
> machine or not.

the license clearly states that it only to be used on an apple-labeled
mac.

a virtual machine is not an apple-labeled mac. it's a virtual machine
with a virtual chipset.

in other words, if you run it in a vm, you're in violation. very simple.

> > lion has a clause that is not present in snow leopard that specifically
> > refers to virtual machines
> 
> The clause allows one run multiple copies of it on the same Mac. That's not
> what the OP wanted to do with Snow Leopard. He only wanted to install one
> copy. 

lion specifically spells out virtual machines. snow leopard does not. 

> > it also restricts what can be done with it when used in a vm.
> 
> Yes it does, and it is notable that the Snow Leopard SLA does not contain any
> such restrictions.

that's because you can't run it in a vm at all so there's no need to
spell out additional restrictions. it would be superfluous.

> The idea that the Snow Leopard SLA prohibits the end user from installing it
> into a virtual machine on a Mac with no other copies of Snow Leopard installed
> is a myth. It was created by somebody who was looking for an explanation of
> why the VM companies do not support Snow Leopard client in their VMs and
> floated
> that end user SLA idea without ever reading the license. It has grown into one
> of the most pervasive bits of computer folklore ever. It simply isn't true.

nonsense. it is absolutely true. ask a lawyer. your description is
nothing more than a rationalization to do what is prohibited.

> The virtual machine companies are not prohibiting Snow Leopard client
> installations because of end user SLAs. They are simply not in the business of
> enforcing end user SLAs. If they were in that business, they would prohibit
> the installation of 10.7, 10.8, and 10.9 virtual machines on a Mac that is
> running OS X 10.10, because doing any of those is a violation of their
> respective software license agreements. But they don't prohibit that, because 
> that's not their business. That's between Apple and the end user and is up to
> the end user to follow.

vmware/parallels block it because apple doesn't want them to ship
products that allows users to break apple's license agreements. very
simple.

they'll even tell you that.

> There is some other reason that the VM companies do not permit the
> installation
> of Snow Leopard client into their VMs, and it must have to do with some
> licensing agreement that they have with Apple. None of these agreements have
> ever been made public. In any case, we the end users are not party to any such
> agreements and are not bound by them.
> 
> Anyway, this horse has been beaten to death, the myth has been debunked years 
> ago, and those who keep dragging it up should give it a rest already.

it's never been debunked.

however, there are those who claim it's false so that they can justify
breaking the license agreement. they are misinformed.

> Especially
> those of you with the "go ask a lawyer" remarks. You are the ones making an
> unsubstantiated claim that the Snow Leopard license says something that it
> does
> not, and the burden of proof is on you to go find a lawyer to back up your
> claim, not the other way around.

nope, the burden is on you to find a lawyer that states that it's
allowed. good luck on that.

the license agreements clearly state that it *isn't* allowed. again,
ask a real lawyer.

> Snow Leopard is now obsoleted software anyway - Apple doesn't even support it
> anymore.

yet they still sell it, and the license agreement still applies.
<http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC573Z/A/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73242

On 15-04-14 15:50, nospam wrote:

> a virtual machine is not an apple-labeled mac. it's a virtual machine
> with a virtual chipset.

From reading the text that was posted in this thread, it appears to
specifically say Mac hardware. So if you run VMware on a MAC hardware,
then running SL on it would be OK by the text of the rules.


My guess is that VMware or others got permission from Apple to emulate a
mac hardware when it runs on a mac hardware as long as they restricted
booting to the server version of snow leopard.

Remember that those virtualisation companies would have to get
permission to emulate the "proprietary" signatures and EFI that is part
of the Mac's ROM which OS-X loosk for and requires.

For instance, the EFI on Mac has the boot loader integrated in firmware
(instead of in EFI partition) and that boot loader is able to understand
HFS+ to go seek and load the boot file from OS-X.

To copy this firmware customization without Apple's permission would be
a copyright violation. So virtualisation companies would require OK from
Apple.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73246

In message <552d7a79$0$58678$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-04-14 15:50, nospam wrote:

>> a virtual machine is not an apple-labeled mac. it's a virtual machine
>> with a virtual chipset.

> From reading the text that was posted in this thread, it appears to
> specifically say Mac hardware. So if you run VMware on a MAC hardware,
> then running SL on it would be OK by the text of the rules.

Nope. You would be running it in a virtual machine, which is NOT Mac
hardware.

-- 
Supposing there was justice for all, after all? For every unheeded
beggar, every harsh word, every neglected duty, every slight... every
choice... Because that was the point, wasn't it? You had to choose. You
might be right, you might be wrong, but you had to choose, knowing that
the rightness or wrongness might never be clear or even that you were
deciding between two sorts of wrong, that there was no right anywhere.
And always, always, you did it by yourself. You were the one there, on
the edge, watching and listening. Never any tears, never any apology,
never any regrets... You saved all that up in a way that could be used
when needed. --Carpe Jugulum

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73249

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > From reading the text that was posted in this thread, it appears to
> > specifically say Mac hardware. So if you run VMware on a MAC hardware,
> > then running SL on it would be OK by the text of the rules.
> 
> Nope. You would be running it in a virtual machine, which is NOT Mac
> hardware.

Nonsense. If it is running on Mac hardware is it running on Mac 
hardware, whether directly or in a virtual machine. Lion and later SLAs 
say one copy "directly" and two more in a virtual machine. Snow Leopard 
says one copy, without specifying directly or in virtual machine. 
"Directly" does not appear in 10.6 or earlier.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73250

On 15-04-14 21:43, Király wrote:

> Nonsense. If it is running on Mac hardware is it running on Mac 
> hardware, whether directly or in a virtual machine.


But what if the virtual host presents the instance with all the
atrributes of it running on Mac hardware ? The instante thinks it is
running on a Mac. Does that satisfy the licensing requirements ?

Again, for the virtualisation software to emulate a Mac, it would need
permision from Apple to use their EFI etc, so they would be operating
under Apple specified restrictions, and that software may be limited to
running directly on Mac hardware, but when complying with that, would be
able to present virtualised Mac hardware which would please virtualised
instances.

The problem with consumer companies such as Apple is there there is no
way to reach anyone who would know the actual real rules unless you are
a mega corporation with an actual contact person at Apple.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73260

In message <552dc637$0$1246$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-04-14 21:43, Király wrote:

>> Nonsense. If it is running on Mac hardware is it running on Mac 
>> hardware, whether directly or in a virtual machine.

> But what if the virtual host presents the instance with all the
> atrributes of it running on Mac hardware ? The instante thinks it is
> running on a Mac. Does that satisfy the licensing requirements ?

Legally? almost certainly not.

But the fact is, Apple has been clear to Parallels and VM Ware about the
issue.

> The problem with consumer companies such as Apple is there there is no
> way to reach anyone who would know the actual real rules unless you are
> a mega corporation with an actual contact person at Apple.

You simply look at the rule Parallels and VM Ware are following.

-- 
Dinosaurs are attacking! Throw a barrel!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73263

In article <552dc637$0$1246$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 15-04-14 21:43, Király wrote:
> 
> > Nonsense. If it is running on Mac hardware is it running on Mac 
> > hardware, whether directly or in a virtual machine.
> 
> 
> But what if the virtual host presents the instance with all the
> atrributes of it running on Mac hardware ? The instante thinks it is
> running on a Mac. Does that satisfy the licensing requirements ?

No. It says "Apple-branded". They can't add a virtual Apple logo to the 
virtual box that the virtual machine came in, when you ordered it from 
the virtual Apple Store.

It's clear to me that that clause in the SLA refers to whatever physical 
hardware the software is running on, whether directly or indirectly 
through a VM.

Note also that unlike early applications like SoftPC, which emulated 
totally different hardware, virtualization is not an emulator. The 
operating system is running directly on the actual hardware, it just 
makes use of built-in hardware features to intercept when it tries to do 
certain operations, and emulate just those operations.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73274

On 15-04-15 11:29, Barry Margolin wrote:

> Note also that unlike early applications like SoftPC, which emulated 
> totally different hardware, virtualization is not an emulator. The 
> operating system is running directly on the actual hardware, 

Fair point. However while only certain instructions are intercepted by
the VM and "emulated", the boot "console" (aka EFI) is very different.

Technically, OS-X does not boot from the Apple branded hardware, it
boots from an emulated EFI in the VM software.  When OS-X boots as an
instance, the system itself has long ago booted and the EFI console
handed control over to the VM software.  And the VM software emulates
EFI not only because the physuical one is no longer active, but also
because the VM software only gives tghe instance the list of devices,
memory and CPUs to which it is meant to have access to. (whereas the
hardware EFI lists all devices/memory available to the booting instance)

Of course, this is all semantics and pedantry. The main goal of these
clauses is to prevent OS-X (especialy now that it is free) from being
installed on non Apple branded hardware, especially by commercial
operations that could resel Dell laptops with OS-X on it.

Individuals who do it may break the legal thing, but doubtful Apple
would bother going after them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73284

In article <552eb9b1$0$44784$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Of course, this is all semantics and pedantry. The main goal of these
> clauses is to prevent OS-X (especialy now that it is free) from being
> installed on non Apple branded hardware, especially by commercial
> operations that could resel Dell laptops with OS-X on it.

Right. And you can't get around that by running an emulator that 
"pretends" to be Apple hardware. Pretending to be something doesn't make 
it so.

Otherwise, someone could take a Dell laptop, stick an Apple sticker on 
it, and say "It's a MacBook, since it has the Apple brand on it, so I 
can run OS X on it".

I wonder why Apple is legally allowed to tie the hardware and software 
like this. Back in the 1960's, IBM lost an anti-trust case because they 
only allowed IBM operating systems to be run on their mainframe 
computers. I thought this set a precedent that you can't have such tight 
linkage between the software and hardware.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73290

In message <barmar-8CD48D.20512115042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> 
  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I wonder why Apple is legally allowed to tie the hardware and software 
> like this. Back in the 1960's, IBM lost an anti-trust case because they 
> only allowed IBM operating systems to be run on their mainframe 
> computers. I thought this set a precedent that you can't have such tight 
> linkage between the software and hardware.

You can run any OS you wish on your Apple computer.

-- 
"Kill yourself and roll a rogue. We'll wait"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73294

On 2015-04-15 20:51, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <552eb9b1$0$44784$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>,
>   JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> Of course, this is all semantics and pedantry. The main goal of these
>> clauses is to prevent OS-X (especialy now that it is free) from being
>> installed on non Apple branded hardware, especially by commercial
>> operations that could resel Dell laptops with OS-X on it.
>
> Right. And you can't get around that by running an emulator that
> "pretends" to be Apple hardware. Pretending to be something doesn't make
> it so.

No need to pretend and no need for emulation.  OS X runs on dozens of 
non Apple x86 computers.

> Otherwise, someone could take a Dell laptop, stick an Apple sticker on
> it, and say "It's a MacBook, since it has the Apple brand on it, so I
> can run OS X on it".
>
> I wonder why Apple is legally allowed to tie the hardware and software
> like this. Back in the 1960's, IBM lost an anti-trust case because they
> only allowed IBM operating systems to be run on their mainframe
> computers. I thought this set a precedent that you can't have such tight
> linkage between the software and hardware.

Hardware makers can't force you to use only their OS.

OS makers can prevent other hardware makers from using their SO w/o a 
license and they cannot be compelled to license the OS to whomever wants it.

Many people do run OS X on "hackintosh's" (illegally).

http://www.hackintosh.com/
http://www.tonymacx86.com/
    http://www.unibeast.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73307

In article <A5ednTEXfMDBdLLInZ2dnUU7-LednZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2015-04-15 20:51, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <552eb9b1$0$44784$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>,
> >   JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Of course, this is all semantics and pedantry. The main goal of these
> >> clauses is to prevent OS-X (especialy now that it is free) from being
> >> installed on non Apple branded hardware, especially by commercial
> >> operations that could resel Dell laptops with OS-X on it.
> >
> > Right. And you can't get around that by running an emulator that
> > "pretends" to be Apple hardware. Pretending to be something doesn't make
> > it so.
> 
> No need to pretend and no need for emulation.  OS X runs on dozens of 
> non Apple x86 computers.

But the SLA says you're not allowed to do that. And using an emulator 
that claims to be Apple hardware doesn't make it so, so it's not a way 
around the SLA.

> 
> > Otherwise, someone could take a Dell laptop, stick an Apple sticker on
> > it, and say "It's a MacBook, since it has the Apple brand on it, so I
> > can run OS X on it".
> >
> > I wonder why Apple is legally allowed to tie the hardware and software
> > like this. Back in the 1960's, IBM lost an anti-trust case because they
> > only allowed IBM operating systems to be run on their mainframe
> > computers. I thought this set a precedent that you can't have such tight
> > linkage between the software and hardware.
> 
> Hardware makers can't force you to use only their OS.
> 
> OS makers can prevent other hardware makers from using their SO w/o a 
> license and they cannot be compelled to license the OS to whomever wants it.

Well, it seems perverse to me that the precedent only works one way. 
Either a vendor of one component of the HW+SW system can force you to 
buy the other component from them instead of a competitor, or they can't.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web