Mac OS X Lion capable of running multiple virtual copies

Discussion in 'Apple' started by Michelle Steiner, Jul 2, 2011.

  1. This should end speculation on a topic that was discussed here recently.

    -- Michelle


    updated 06:55 pm EDT, Fri July 1, 2011
    Virtualization previously limited to Server

    Apple has reportedly modified its end-user license agreement (EULA) to
    enable Mac OS X Lion users to run multiple copies of the operating system
    on one machine. The new EULA, distributed alongside the Lion Golden Master
    build, is said to explicitly allow users to run up to two additional
    virtual copies of the operating system, without requiring additional
    licenses for each virtual machine.

    Mac OS X Leopard first brought the ability to run virtual machines, however
    the feature was limited to the server edition, according to a MacRumors
    report. Users also had to obtain a separate license for each of the virtual

    Aside from the new virtualization capabilities, a separate report suggests
    Apple may be eliminating the welcome video for Lion. In the GM build, which
    has included the video in the past, users are no longer greeted with
    "Welcome" presented on the screen in different languages while a song plays
    in the background. Instead, new installs are said to transition directly to
    the setup assistant with an introduction to multi-tough features.

    [I think they meant multi-touch, not multi-tough. -- Michelle]
    Michelle Steiner, Jul 2, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. Michelle Steiner

    Alan Browne Guest

    That's good. The 4 GB (more or less) DL is big enough w/o video fluff
    (though it may be generated algorithmically and not really take up much
    Kodiak, Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard,
    Lion ...

    Sounds multi-tough to me.

    Don't you hate bad puns?
    Alan Browne, Jul 2, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. No.
    Michelle Steiner, Jul 2, 2011
  4. Michelle Steiner

    Alan Browne Guest

    We should get along just fine ...
    Alan Browne, Jul 3, 2011
  5. Michelle Steiner

    David Empson Guest

    Not fully. Based on what has been quoted, it allows Lion to be
    virtualized on Lion (up to two VMs per computer). It isn't clear whether
    this will extend to virtualizing Snow Leopard (non-server) or earlier
    versions on Lion, which is the more interesting question.

    We still need to see the text of the licence agreement (which hasn't
    been leaked in full), and whether Apple publishes a revised licence
    agreement for earlier versions.

    Then we need to see how the VM vendors react. At present, VMware Fusion
    and Parallels Desktop are disallowing installation of Snow Leopard
    (non-server) and earlier versions in a virtual machine, and VirtualBox's
    documentation says it has the same restriction.
    David Empson, Jul 3, 2011
  6. Michelle Steiner

    Wes Groleau Guest

    Do you fine yourself making bad spelling puns?
    Wes Groleau, Jul 3, 2011
  7. Michelle Steiner

    Paul Sture Guest

    The devil will be in the detail. From a competitive point of view
    Microsoft already provide this capability for Windows 7 (Professional
    and above) users, in order to continue running legacy programs.

    Known as "XP Mode", this consists of Virtual PC plus an already licensed
    virtual machine image of XP.
    This implies upgrades to these software products. Hopefully not
    chargeable ones, again we'll have to wait and see. If you compare the
    feature lists of VNware Fusion and Parallels Desktop they seem to be in
    a mini arms race, so I'd expect each of them to be trying to win
    customers from the other here.
    Paul Sture, Jul 3, 2011
  8. Michelle Steiner

    Alan Browne Guest

    Hell no - those are the best.
    Alan Browne, Jul 3, 2011
  9. Michelle Steiner

    Király Guest

    It's OK. A single copy of Snow Leopard running under virtualization on
    a Lion Mac is still one copy of Snow Leopard, running on a single
    Apple-labeled computer. Nothing about that is against the Snow Leopard
    license that I can see.
    Király, Jul 4, 2011
  10. Michelle Steiner

    David Empson Guest

    If you install Lion on a computer which was running Snow Leopard, that
    counts as an upgrade, which renders the Snow Leopard licence agreement
    invalid, as per clause 1: "The terms of this License will govern any
    software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the
    original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a
    separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern."

    In that case, the Snow Leopard licence agreement will be superseded by
    the Lion licence agreement. We therefore need to see the full text of
    the Lion licence agreement to see whether you are still allowed to use
    that copy of Snow Leopard virtualized on Lion. This was not permitted in
    similar upgrade scenarios with earlier versions of Mac OS X. Clause 3
    (Updates): "If an Apple Software update completely replaces (full
    install) a previously licensed version of the Apple Software, you may
    not use both versions of the Apple Software at the same time nor may you
    transfer them separately."

    If you own another separately licensed copy of Snow Leopard, in
    principle it should be OK to virtualize it on Lion, since (as you say)
    running it in a VM under Lion would be a single copy of that licence of
    Snow Leopard running on an Apple-labelled computer.

    However, the same argument should apply to virtualizing Snow Leopard on
    Snow Leopard, but that is not permitted by the VM vendors. Their opinion
    seems to be that only Server may be virtualized (and presumably they
    will extend this to Lion), because the Server licence agreements
    specficially mention such usage, whereas the non-server licence
    agreements do not.

    As I said, we need to see the Lion licence agreement, whether Apple
    revises their published licence agreements for earlier versions, and how
    the VM vendors react before being able to draw too many conclusions.
    David Empson, Jul 4, 2011
  11. Michelle Steiner

    Király Guest

    Note that that says "updates" and not "upgrades". Apple makes a
    distinction between the two and even has a KB article about it:

    Snow Leopard to Lion would be an upgrade and not an update, and so
    Clause 3 would not apply.

    Upgrading a Snow Leopard installation to Lion would remove Snow Leopard
    from your Mac, leaving you with the license to reinstall one copy of it
    and continue to use it. One Lion license, one Snow Leopard license, one
    installed copy of each to use.
    Király, Jul 4, 2011
  12. Michelle Steiner

    David Empson Guest

    A KB article is not necessarily using the same terminology as a legal
    document. I think this is an example of poor wording in an Apple SLA,
    and they don't literally mean "update". If they did, then that clause
    would never apply as nothing Apple has released as an "update" to any
    version of Mac OS X has ever completely replaced it or done a full

    The generally accepted use of the term "upgrade" is that the software
    may completely replace an earlier version, but you only have a single
    licence to use the product. This clearly applies to "CPU Drop-in DVD"
    and "Upgrade DVD" supplied with a computer bought around the time a new
    version of Mac OS X is introduced. That DVD upgrades the existing
    installation, and you only have one licence to install Mac OS X.

    The same should apply to the free copy of Lion obtained for computers
    bought after 6 June, but might not apply to a purchased copy of Lion.

    Another example of silly wording in the Snow Leopard SLA is clause 2 C
    where it describing the Leopard Upgrade licence. It says you can "...
    install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single
    Apple-branded computer as long as that computer has a properly licensed
    copy of Mac OS X Leopard already installed on it." Fine for
    installation, but after that, you no longer have Leopard installed, so
    if taken literally you cannot actually use or run Snow Leopard after it
    is installed!
    David Empson, Jul 4, 2011
  13. No. MacOS 10.1 was sold as an update disk in addition to a full install for
    $19.99. It required an installed 10.0 system.

    It was the last version like that because people found out that you could
    make a DMG file from the CD, open it on your desktop, delete one file,
    and burn a new CD that would do a fresh install.

    There was a big stink about it because it did not include a license for OSX.

    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jul 4, 2011
  14. Michelle Steiner

    David Empson Guest

    Ah, I had forgotten about that one (I never had it, as I was an ADC
    Select member at the time and got a full install of 10.1). I assume you
    are right that it was called an "Update" and not an "Upgrade".

    That could well mean the "Update" clause is there in case Apple ever
    wants to use it again.

    I note that the same Transfer > Update clause appears in the licence for
    iLife, so it may be a standard part of every Apple SLA.
    David Empson, Jul 4, 2011
  15. Michelle Steiner

    Király Guest

    I do not believe for an instant that Apple's use of the word "update" in
    the SLA is fully intentional and carefully chosen.
    It was the 10.1 situation, as others have pointed out.
    I don't understand how you are drawing that conclusion.

    You had licensed copy of Leopard installed. You bought and installed
    Snow Leopard, a process which removed Leopard. Your Snow Leopard
    license now covers your Snow Leopard installation.
    Király, Jul 4, 2011
  16. Mac OS X 10.1 was free for everyone who owned Mac OS X 10.0. I got a copy
    from my local Macintosh retailer at the time. (If I recall correctly, it
    was Comp USA, although it may have been Fry's Electronics.) That disk
    would not install unless you had Mac OS X 10.0 already installed.

    If you did not have a local Macintosh retailer, Apple would send you a 10.1
    disk; they charged $19.99 for shipping and handling, not for the software

    If you did not have Mac OS X 10.0 installed, you could buy Mac OS X 10.1
    for $129.
    Michelle Steiner, Jul 4, 2011
  17. Outside of the US, you had to pay for it. The price in the Jerusalem
    Apple Store (which was not owned or run by Apple and went out of business
    around 2001) was the local equivalent of $20 (including VAT).

    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jul 4, 2011
  18. Michelle Steiner

    Paul Sture Guest

    There was a similar issue with 10.2. I recall a bit of an outcry that
    10.2 cost so much for current users, and there was a cheap upgrade offer
    for anyone who had bought a system within the previous 6 or so weeks.

    However that offer didn't apply here in Switzerland; it was as far as I
    could make out a US only thing.
    Paul Sture, Jul 4, 2011
  19. Michelle Steiner

    Király Guest

    I forgot the word "not" before the word "fully". :-/
    Király, Jul 4, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.