Thread-topic: Mac OS X Server 10.5 EULA allows virtualization
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618
On 10/29/07 4:44 PM, "Dave Schroeder" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> On Oct 29, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Dan Shoop wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Dave Schroeder wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 29, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Dan Shoop wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I wish they didn't have the part to where the underlying OS had
>>>>> to be
>>>>> OSX Server.
>>>>
>>>> No where did it say that in the above.
>>>
>>> Some people are interpreting "This License allows you to install
>>> and use one copy of the Mac OS X Server [...] on a single Apple-
>>> labeled computer," to mean that the initial copy of Mac OS X Server
>>> cannot be installed in virtualization, meaning that Mac OS X Server
>>> has to be the host OS (disqualifying solutions like ESX Server).
>>>
>>> Of course, that doesn't make sense for the reasons I outlined in my
>>> previous message.
>>
>> Nor is it what it says. It says that can install and use the license
>> on one computer (say in a VM) and that if you want to run another
>> instance it needs it's own license.
>
> The problem is that "This License allows you to install and use one
> copy of the Mac OS X Server [...] on a single Apple-labeled computer"
> is the SAME language that was in the EULA for Tiger, which
> virtualization companies interpreted as "prohibiting" virtualization
> (by which they apparently mean not *explicitly allowing*
> virtualization). Therefore, people are taking that (incorrect)
> interpretation and extrapolating inappropriately.
Looks like the people who matter have settled on an interpretation...
http://db.tidbits.com/article/9277
Matt
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Macos-x-server mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/macos-x-server/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
