Parallels Server Runs Virtualized Mac OS X

[jellomizer]

I understand that in Europe a EULA is in itself a violation of copyright law. For example, when you buy an item that contains copyrighted information you are bound by copyright law, but you are NOT bound by some weird agreement that the vendor includes and claims you "agreed" to by opening the package. Claiming that the consumer agreed to a contract he hadn't seen at time of purchase and never signed or agreed to is in itself not legal.

I do not know why in the US companies can apparently force a contract on people without their consent, but in Europe they cannot.

I never care about EULAs, I only care about the law. The law doesn't allow me to distribute copies of copyrighted material without a licence to do. If the EULA gives me more rights than that, I will agree with it. If the EULA gives me less rights than those I have by law, why would I agree with it? I already have the product and am bound by the law. And whether I found the package on the street or bought it in a shop, my ownership is legal.

I find it strange that American law enforcement doesn't care about prosecuting companies who play fast and loose with copyright law by forcing contracts on people that a) their customers didn't see or sign before they got the product and b) take away from rights that customers have according to copyright law.

Originally EULA where mostly to protect the software developer from lawsuits from their product. (being that software can run on different systems and in different methods) It is impossible for a program of medium to large size to handle all situations properly. So the EULA were mostly for preventing companies and people from suing the company because they run the program and saved the data file on top of their current years tax files. Or the program crashed in a business and the company sues to get back their lost hours.

Then we can tangent from this to incorporate reverse engineering because there is no way we could support a system that is reverse engineered to do something different that we never programmed for ourselves and beyond our support and control. So lets tell people not to do this.

Then we can tangent off of this again to provide illegal copies because people could be getting the application without proper manuals or with additional software and it continues on and on.

EULA are not enforceable under criminal law unless they break copywrite law or other laws such as the US DMCA etc... But what it does allow the company to not support the product or disable it...

 

[topgunn]

I guess if they have the code of running osx in the windows or linux versions and simply keep it disabled, some hacker will find a way to break it and we will see many PCs running virtualized osx...

You do realize that this happened about 2 years ago, right? Thousands of people are running Mac OS X via VM Ware illegally on their Windows and Linux boxes as we type.

 

[jragosta]

Technology gets held back because of legalese.

I understand Parallels being a good partner, but I hate finding out something that CAN be done that would be quite cool ISN'T. Grrrrrr....

Yeah. What a shame that Apple wants to make money so they can stay in business.

I understand that in Europe a EULA is in itself a violation of copyright law. For example, when you buy an item that contains copyrighted information you are bound by copyright law, but you are NOT bound by some weird agreement that the vendor includes and claims you "agreed" to by opening the package. Claiming that the consumer agreed to a contract he hadn't seen at time of purchase and never signed or agreed to is in itself not legal.

I do not know why in the US companies can apparently force a contract on people without their consent, but in Europe they cannot.

I never care about EULAs, I only care about the law. The law doesn't allow me to distribute copies of copyrighted material without a licence to do. If the EULA gives me more rights than that, I will agree with it. If the EULA gives me less rights than those I have by law, why would I agree with it? I already have the product and am bound by the law. And whether I found the package on the street or bought it in a shop, my ownership is legal.

I find it strange that American law enforcement doesn't care about prosecuting companies who play fast and loose with copyright law by forcing contracts on people that a) their customers didn't see or sign before they got the product and b) take away from rights that customers have according to copyright law.

It's not really as different as you think.

Apple has a copyrighted OS. The EULA is essentially the terms of their copyright license. Apple is graning you a license to use their copyrighted material under their license terms.

It's just a lot more convenient than requiring every customer to sign a license agreement.

 

[ajbrehm]

It's not really as different as you think.

It is really quite different. Copyright law gives me certain rights. If the EULA takes those rights away from me, there is a difference and I don't have to acknowledge the EULA.

Apple has a copyrighted OS. The EULA is essentially the terms of their copyright license. Apple is granting you a license to use their copyrighted material under their license terms.

Nope. It's immaterial. Copyright law already regulates what I can and cannot do with copyrighted material. I do not need a licence to do what the law says I am allowed to do with a product I have acquired legally.

It's just a lot more convenient than requiring every customer to sign a license agreement.

It's also more convenient if I sell you a car and THEN inform you that you are not allowed to drive the car between 6 PM and midnight or to paint it red. It's a lot more convenient than getting you to sign those terms before you buy the car.

The point is that under EU law contracts that a customer gets to see only after buying the product are not valid. It has nothing to do with convenience. It's the law.

And given that copyright law gives copyright holders and society certain privileges and rights, I find it very odd that the US allow one side to enforce terms that the other didn't agree with and that take away from their rights.

I have my own EULA, btw. It's essentially a VLA, a vendor licence agreement. I simply assume that Apple agree with it when they sell me the software, just like they assume that I agree with their EULA. I can tell you that the VLA does give me quite a lot of freedom in regards to what I can do with the software and restricts what Apple can do with the money I gave them (for example, they must not store the money in a bank that is not owned by me).

Alas, copyright law disagrees with my VLA, and Apple never signed it before they sold me the software, and contract law disagrees with my (and Apple's) opinion that a contract the other party hasn't seen or agreed to before the transaction is binding, hence we both will have to do what the law allows us to do regardless of other arrangements made.

I would attach a copy of the VLA to cheques I send to Apple, but paying by credit card is more convenient.

(Note that in Europe, I don't have to send them a copy of the VLA, as neither the VLA nor the EULA have any legal meaning.)

 

[0racle]

I'm glad that these guys respect Apple's EULA.

Except they might not be, or at least allowing others to break the EULA.

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosxserver105.pdf

The OS X 10.5 Server license says:

"This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Mac OS X Server software (the “Mac OS X Server Software”) on a
single Apple-labeled computer. You may also install and use other copies of Mac OS X Server Software on the same Apple-labeled computer, provided that you acquire an individual and valid license from Apple for each of these other copies of Mac OS X Server Software."

You are allowed to run Server on the Apple branded machine. You can also run other instances on the same machine if you have licenses to do so. This is not all that different from the Windows Server Enterprise EULA which dictates to virtualize the 4 copies, those 4 copies have to be running on that same licensed copy of Server Enterprise. I believe that running OS X in a hypervisor environment is a breach of the OS X Server EULA.

 

[synth3tik]

Sweet. I can become that much more of a geek.

 

[ajbrehm]

Except they might not be, or at least allowing others to break the EULA.

The Finder allows you to copy files, effectively allowing you to "break the EULA".

In fact, I myself often fail to stand behind users and prevent them from breaking EULAs.

It's terrible.

 

[AppleMojo]

The point is that under EU law contracts that a customer gets to see only after buying the product are not valid. It has nothing to do with convenience. It's the law.

How does this work if the EULA is posted @ Apple.com. Does this imply that the software company has to force the end user to read the agreement before a transaction takes place?

Or possibly before they enter the store they sit through a EULA keynote presentation?

Lately it just seems that ignorance and tolerance are now more important than common sense.

Don't get me wrong; I understand what your saying, it just irks me that it has to be so drawn out.

And again, with that rational... I have never signed a copy of the US Constitution nor have I had a government representative sit down and explain to me copyright laws, therefor I should be exempt. ;-)

 

[kaisdaddy]

Very true...

You do realize that this happened about 2 years ago, right? Thousands of people are running Mac OS X via VM Ware illegally on their Windows and Linux boxes as we type.

However, in order for Apple's hand to be "forced", the whole process will have to be easy for the average user. While there probably are thousands of geeks who are running their hackintosh, Joe Blow is not going to get on board unless the available solution is simple. That means that installation is nearly as easy as installing OS X on a Mac and that the OS can't break after updating the software. That has not happened yet.

 

[AppleMojo]

The Finder allows you to copy files, effectively allowing you to "break the EULA".

In fact, I myself often fail to stand behind users and prevent them from breaking EULAs.

It's terrible.

That makes you an accessory.

 

[kaisdaddy]

Ha

And again, with that rational... I have never signed a copy of the US Constitution nor have I had a government representative sit down and explain to me copyright laws, therefor I should be exempt. ;-)

The government has been ignoring the constitution for decades now. It was designed to keep them off our back.

I agree with you that contracts should be clear and voluntary.

 

[saltyzoo]

Does anyone really think that a company (parallels) is going to put a feature into their product (the ability to run OSX on their windows version) and not advertise it?

What would the point be? They'd open themselves up to litigation / losing a valuable relationship for a feature they can't tell people about. That's really great marketing.

 

[aaarrrgggh]

Parallels Server vs. VM Ware ESX Server

So is this product intended to compete with ESX Server, or is it intended to be a single box alternative to Server/ESX Server?

Just yesterday I was bemoaning the cost of ESX Server as it would make an X-Serve not viable for our office. I want to avoid having a Linux base layer if we switch to virtualization for some of our functions...

Hope Parallels can price it competitively for the stated market they are trying to reach.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

Sweet. I can become that much more of a geek.

Too late for that, most of us on MR are already geeks since OS X is built on freeBSD, plus running PPC to x86 conversion and now multiple OSes only to have a select who care to have Apple HW and also a hackintosh.

Not to forget server side.

What is the industry making us Apple users into (outcasts)?

 

[jashic]

fellas....people have been running MacOS on Dell machines for years. What's so new about this?

- Pick up a $500 Dell machine
- Install EFI and MacOS
- End up with a Mac system that's 30% faster than the fastest iMac.

 

[inmotion]

osx86

let me just say that indeed osx86 has been around for a while
actually.... i was a user of it myself.

let me explain,


i was interested in os x for music recording but had purchased a asus m5 laptop not too long and could just not justify buying a mac without even knowing the OS

a bit later: osx86 slowly became my primary OS (though i was an windows IT assistant..)

march 2006 --> convinced a friend to buy a macbook pro based on my great experience on osx86

august 2006 --> bought my first macbook pro...

present --> never going back

so in the end... i guess osx86 helped a great deal in transiting me from a experienced windows user to a mac loving one.

 

[stainlessliquid]

It cant get any easier to install OS X on a PC. The osx86 installers out right now are exactly the same as installing OS X on a real mac.

People are going to do what theyre going to do, Parallels wont make it any harder or easier. The EULA is just as much BS as the RIAA saying ripping a CD is illegal so who cares about the so called "legality" of it all, I seriously doubt Apple could ever enforce such a ridiculous restriction if the person bought the copy themselves.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

It truly is amazing we have the following:

Mac Camp:

We want to run 10.5 and, XP, Vista, 2000, Linux, etc... on our Apple built computers.


versus


Generic PC Camp:

We want to run 10.5 (hackintosh), who cares for Windows unless its gaming and speciality application(s) on our self-built PC.


Is it me or Mac users are just bigger geeks, most are not hard gamers...we just like to justify the cost of our purchase.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

It cant get any easier to install OS X on a PC. The installers are exactly the same as installing OS X on a real mac.

People are going to do what theyre going to do, Parallels wont make it any harder or easier. The EULA is just as much BS as the RIAA saying ripping a CD is illegal.

Sure people such as you and I how to do it and call it easy, however there are many people who will not care to go through the trouble.

 

[AppleMojo]

fellas....people have been running MacOS on Dell machines for years. What's so new about this?

- Pick up a $500 Dell machine
- Install EFI and MacOS
- End up with a Mac system that's 30% faster than the fastest iMac.

30% faster eh?

Most negative comments regarding Mac's always end up being about price... If you can't afford it, then I guess thats really all you got left. Good luck with that.

Besides, I heard that nearly 96% of all statistics are made up.

 

[AppleMojo]

Is it me or Mac users are just bigger geeks, most are not hard gamers...we just like to justify the cost of our purchase.

I completely agree; I know so many newly converted Mac users who are blown away with OSX and Apple hardware simply because they had no idea it was Unix and they've never seen Unix look so good.

It takes a serious user to really appreciate the technology sitting on/under that desk.

A convert myself; I just can't bring myself to spend another $1 on flavor of the month hardware slapped together in Austin, TX.

 

[AppleMojo]

People are going to do what theyre going to do, Parallels wont make it any harder or easier. The EULA is just as much BS as the RIAA saying ripping a CD is illegal so who cares about the so called "legality" of it all, I seriously doubt Apple could ever enforce such a ridiculous restriction if the person bought the copy themselves.

This silly mentality is the exact reason these licenses and agreements are placed on all of us.

If I disagree with the rules, I don't play. Unlike the type, who continues to play then cries about the consequences they were completely aware of.

Apple has 100% the right to choose what their software is installed on. They designed it, they built it and therefor they get to define the rules of it's use.

I in fact, think it would be great if you have to prove ownership of Mac hardware before you buy OS X. Or better yet, they just do away with boxed copies of OS X and it is only downloadable onto certified Apple hardware during an upgrade process. As this is what the OS was designed to do in the first place.

Personal Note:

When you develop software and have licenses being stolen, and it directly affects the quality of life for your family/children; then you may an opinion.

And to save a response for the expected comment: By installing a purchased copy of OS X on non-Apple hardware you are not purchasing the entire intended package from Apple, which does affect many, many pocket books.

 

[Mindflux]

fellas....people have been running MacOS on Dell machines for years. What's so new about this?

- Pick up a $500 Dell machine
- Install EFI and MacOS
- End up with a Mac system that's 30% faster than the fastest iMac.

How does one change from BIOS to EFI? I don't think it's as simple as 'installing EFI'

 

[saltyzoo]

How does one change from BIOS to EFI? I don't think it's as simple as 'installing EFI'

Yup. I think it's hilarious when people make it sound like running OS X on a non-apple is easy / stable. The only people that believe that are people that haven't tried to do it.

 

[Merkuryy]

Most people seem to lose focus on the fact that Apple is not an OS company. OSX is just the platform which runs on Apple hardware.

At $129.00 a copy every 18 months, Apple isn't getting rich. Apple's revenue stream is high end consumer devices & hardware which run with beautiful interfaces.

.

Yes, I know that, thanx but we're talking about the future. And Mac OSX is the face of Apple computer, see that the image of Macbook Macbook Pro, iMac both have the beautiful Leopard on the screen.

And in China, my prof's assistant has a "dock" and the "aqua" effect on its Win XP. Most people who love the beauty of Apple will still stick with M$ in this way. That's not big deal for Apple which biggest market is in US, but if you consider the future in 20 or 30 years, man, that's what is important