Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #72999 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ymir <agisaak.spamblock@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-10 08:15 -0600 |
| Last post | 2015-04-10 13:15 -0400 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 46 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 00:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mgkagn$t40$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73241 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > 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. As a matter of interest, perhaps, but not as a matter of consequence. > it also helps non-lawyers understand the legalese. The legalese isn't much different between the two. > 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. Ha ha. Good one. Have you run that by a lawyer? If it's running on Apple hardware it's running on Apple hardware, whether in a virtual machine or not. > in other words, if you run it in a vm, you're in violation. very simple. Your argument does not support your conclusion. > lion specifically spells out virtual machines. snow leopard does not. Lion specifically says that you can run one copy *directly*, and more copies in a virtual machine. Snow Leopard just says one copy, without specifying either directly or in a virtual machine. There is no restriction either way. > 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. > nonsense. it is absolutely true. ask a lawyer. The burden of proof is not on me. You're the one who says that snow leopard cannot be installed into a vitual machine, while it has been proven that the neither virtual nor machine appears anywhere in the license agreement. That puts the burden of proof on you. > your description is nothing more than a rationalization to do what is > prohibited. No, it's just following the terms of the license. If I install 10.6 into a virtual machine on a Mac running 10.10, exactly what part of the license agreement have I violated? Which section? > vmware/parallels block it because apple doesn't want them to ship > products that allows users to break apple's license agreements. Wrong. They are not in that business. The VM companies allow the the unning 10.9 in a virtual machine on a Mac running 10.10, yet that is a violation of the 10.9 software license agreement for the end user. The VM companies block 10.6 VMs because of agreements they have with apple, not because of agreements apple has with end users. > the license agreements clearly state that it *isn't* allowed. again, > ask a real lawyer. The license agreements say nothing of the kind. So you go ask a lawyer yourself. -- K. Lang may your lum reek.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 22:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mgk2pn$d27$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #73240 |
Király <ggrandish@gmail.com> writes:
> Nobody said anything about additional copies.
Nobody except Apple.
> 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 reference to "Apple Software" below is to the operating system,
*regardless of its version.*
| *SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MAC OS X*
| 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.
That said, if one really wanted to cheat, it's not all that difficult.
But, these days one can buy an unlimited 10.6 server license from Apple
for just US$20. That's easily the most cost effective way to go.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 11:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-520FAB.11225015042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #73244 |
In article <mgk2pn$d27$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote: > Király <ggrandish@gmail.com> writes: > > > Nobody said anything about additional copies. > > Nobody except Apple. What he meant was that no one in this discussion was arguing either way about additional copies, so it's a non-sequitor. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mgjbj9$3re$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #73229 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes, quoting
Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca>:
> > 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.
10.6 Single user (client) license
https://ssl.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx106.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.
10.6 Server (multi-user) license
https://ssl.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx_snowleopard.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 "Mac OS X Server
Software") 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.
10.8 Single user (client) license
https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/OSX1082.pdf
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. [...]
(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, for purposes of: (a) software development;
(b) testing during software development; (c) using OS X Server; or (d)
personal, non-commercial use.
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 11:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-7FD706.11144614042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #73226 |
In article <mgib61$ela$1@dont-email.me>, me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) wrote: > 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. The statement "Apple allows the server version to be virtualized but not the client" applies whether the prohibition is on the end user or the virtual machine vendor. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-10 13:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <55280535$0$44248$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #72999 |
On 15-04-10 10:15, Ymir wrote: > I'm not familiar with OS X server, so I was hoping someone could confirm > that the server version includes additional services and some front-ends > for configuring them, but is otherwise identical to snow leopard (i.e. > the OS behaves in essentially the same way as OS X client if one doesn't > run the server.app) For snow leopard, it isn't the "server.app". It has more functional Server Monitor and Server Admin, Workgroup Manager etc apps. "essentually the same way as OS-X client" is 100% true. Is it 100% identical ?, I wouldn't be able to say. (In my case, I have a problem with the xQuartz app on server but not on desktop for instance. Have to spend more time investigating the bug). But the problem could be because of something I did instead of a server vs client difference. the old Apple X11 app worked fine on both. From a security point of view, you may wish to go through all services and disable the server ones you don't need. (easily done via Server Admin tool for instance).
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web