The Prospects For Virtualizing OS X

seriouslywtf writes in with a look at the current state of the question: will people eventually be able to run Mac OS X in a virtual machine, either on the Mac or under Windows? Ars Technica has articles outlining the positions of two VM vendors, Parallels and VMWare. Both have told Ars unequivocally that they won't enable users to virtualize OS X until Apple explicitly gives them the thumbs up. First, Parallels: "'We won't enable this kind of functionality until Apple gives their blessing for a few reasons,' Rudolph told Ars. 'First, we're concerned about our users — we are never going to encourage illegal activity that could open our users up to compromised machines or any sort of legal action. This is the same reason why we always insist on using a fully-licensed, genuine copy of Windows in a virtual machine — it's safer, more stable, fully supported, and completely legal.'" And from VMWare: "'We're very interested in running Mac OS X in a virtual machine because it opens up a ton of interesting use cases, but until Apple changes its licensing policy, we prefer to not speculate about running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment,' Krishnamurti added."

Comments

OS X is already virtualised.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

OS X is already virtualised - it has been for ages. Not supported, but certainly doable.

Be nice if Apple gave a bit more help to their customers however - I am not a big fan of artifical restrictions.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[LordNimon]

There's a difference between "legal action" and "illegal". A company could instruct its lawyer to send you a C&D letter. That's technically a "legal action". However, what you are doing may not be illegal, and you may be forced to prove that in court if the company sues you for ignoring it's C&D demand.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[GlassHeart]

it would seem to me that there is nothing illegal about this whatsoever (as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).

IIRC, US Courts have ruled that installing software constitutes copying (from CD or DVD to hard disk), and violates copyright unless otherwise licensed. The license in question stipulates that you can only run MacOS X on Apple-branded hardware.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

you just controdicted yourself in the same sentence. any form of reprisal WILL take the form of legal action,

Whilst Apple may take legal reprisals, the easiest form of reprisal (against Parallels) would be to simply stop selling parallels at the Apple store. How do you think that would affect sales?

Oh - and if you'd actually bothered to read either article before posting, you would have seen non-legal reprisals mentioned:

Legal issues aside, Parallels doesn't want to strain its relationship with Apple, who can be rather fickle at times about which companies are in its favor. "We have a very good working relationship with Apple, and we don't want to do anything to jeopardize the great partnership that's been so valuable to both of us," he added.

and:

Neither VMWare nor Parallels is willing to risk angering the deities that reside at Apple corporate just for a few extra software sales. Based off of inside reports that I've received from various developers who have to work closely with Apple (no one at Parallels or VMWare, just in case you were curious), it can be very easy to fall out of Apple's favor for even the slightest, most petty of issues

Idiot. Please try to comprehend the discussion before posting.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[QuantumG]

Yeah, no. Installing the software only on Apple hardware is a *condition* of the license, not a convenate. If you fail to abide by the conditions, you have no license.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

you refuse to abide by the EULA then, under copyright law, you have no right to copy the work

Utter Nonsense (at least in the US):

Looking at United States Code, Chapter 17:

117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

[emph mine]

It is amazing to me just how many people in this forum believe they have to give up their rights because an EULA tells them to.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[morgan_greywolf]

it would seem to me that there is nothing illegal about this whatsoever (as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).

Sure it's illegal. You have to break Apple's DRM to use it in a virtual machine. That' a direct violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and similar laws in various other countries outside of the U.S.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had done your homework, you would know that Mac OS X does _not_ use a TPM.
http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Sparr0]

I believe you are incorrect. I cannot cite any specific precedents one way or the other, but the letter of the law is quite clear on the subject:

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

In short... if making a copy is required to use the software, then making that copy without permission isnt a violation of copyright.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The EULA says "Apple-labeled" not "apple-labeled." That means a computer labeled by Apple, not a computer labeled with an apple or even the Apple logo.

Re:Great Example Of Why Apple Changed Their Name

[toonerh]

Someone already moderated this as "Troll", and I won't disagree.

IBM never intended to compete fully with Intel and AMD for the desktop market considering Apple's 5% market share. On the other hand, IBM appears determined to continue with improved Power processors for their high-end desktop and server market -- as well as the imbedded market which now includes highly visible gaming consoles, but it has been around for over a decade.

Also PA SEMI has a great new low power PowerPC chip.

The x86 hardware is not that bad, especially when running AMD's 64-bit extensions.

Re:Why would anyone want to do this?

[myowntrueself]

The only benefits of OS X are software, the hardware is the same as any other Intel PC these days, just has a different shiny wrapper on it.

A shiny wrapper that says "Designed in California"!!!

Already Done

[RAMMS EIN]

VMWare and Parallels may not be willing to let users run OS X in their virtual machines, but there are others that do. For example, Mac-on-Linux, QEMU, and PearPC. All these are open-source, too.

Future?

[wolenczak]

I already do, on VMWare workstation / openSUSE 10.2