Re: Mac OS X Lion capable of running multiple virtual copies

Király <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

David Empson <dempson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

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.

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In that case, the Snow Leopard licence agreement will be superseded by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