Will Apple allow us to run Snow Leopard in a virtual environment??

The current EULA for OSX allows for only Leopard Server and Snow Leopard Server to be run in a virtual machine on Apple branded hardware. Leopard "desktop" and Snow Leopard "desktop" are not allowed to be run in a virtual machine. The server versions of OSX do include Rosetta so from a legal standpoint, what you're asking is currently possible if you use the server versions of OSX. However the cost for OSX Server is $500 so for most people, this is not a practical solution.

Apple has not mentioned if they will ever change the EULA for OSX "desktop", so don't hold your breath.

...I'm hoping Apple will change this as SL will be "OLD" software at that point.

Apple doesn't respond here and doesn't necessarily read anything posted here either. So posting here would probably do little good. You can tell Apple your thoughts at:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/

$500 is very practical if the alternative is to buy thousands of dollars worth of new software just to be compatible with Lion. This is certainly true for me. I'll be putting in my order for Snow Leopard Server soon.

Norman Wikner wrote:

$500 is very practical if the alternative is to buy thousands of dollars worth of new software just to be compatible with Lion. This is certainly true for me. I'll be putting in my order for Snow Leopard Server soon.

Just be aware that some software do "compliance checking" to see if you're running on the server version of OSX or not. For example, I've seen some spam filtering software that has a more expensive "server version" which assumes that if you're running on OSX Server, you "must be" running an email server for multiple users, so the license won't allow the single-user-consumer-license to run on OSX Server. This is not common, but I just thought I'd mention it since if you've never used OSX Server on a regular basis, this kind of issue tends to sneak up and bite you. 😉

Larry Schultz wrote:

With the upcoming release of Lion, and the litany of apps running with the help of Rosetta (i.e. Quicken... and no update in site from Intuit)..... will Apple allow us to run Snow Leopard client in a virtual environment on the Lion box?

Snow Leopard client can't be run as a virtual OS at all, Snow Leopard server can.

Lion client and server can run as a virtual OS in Lion though, so Apple will allow that.

Lion client and server can run as a virtual OS in Lion though, so Apple will allow that.

But that's no help since Lion doesn't support Rosetta. Apple should allow users running Lion as the foreground OS to virtualize Snow Leopard client so they can run their PPC software.

Kurt,

All of what you say in your post is already permitted by the Lion and Snow Leopard licenses. There is nothing in either license that prohibits running a single copy of Snow Leopard Client in a virtual machine, on a Mac running Lion, provided that the user has the proper licenses for each OS.

Asatoran's comment above "The current EULA for OSX allows for only Leopard Server and Snow LeopardServer to be run in a virtual machine on Apple branded hardware. Leopard "desktop" and Snow Leopard "desktop" are not allowed to be run in a virtual machine." is false. That statement has been repeated and repeated so often on the internet that is has reached the status of folklore, with soooo many people believing it.

Kurt Lang wrote:

But that's no help since Lion doesn't support Rosetta. Apple should allow users running Lion as the foreground OS to virtualize Snow Leopard client so they can run their PPC software.

I agree.

Király wrote:

There is nothing in either license that prohibits running a single copy of Snow Leopard Client in a virtual machine, on a Mac running Lion, provided that the user has the proper licenses for each OS.

If you were running a single copy of the software in a virtual machine, the virtual machine would have to be running on an operating system. That would be another copy of the software. The Snow Leopard License Agreement says that "you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time".

The Lion License Agreement has a section dedicated to virtual machines and explicity says:

you are granted a limited, non-transferable, non-exclusive license:

....

(iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software.

Furthermore, the section referenced above only applies if you have purchased your Lion license from the Mac App Store.

Your only argument here is that 1 equals 2 and somehow I don't think that argument would hold up in court.

Just dump Quicken and be done with it already.

Take a look at this VMware forum thread:

Running 10.6 Snow Leopard client in Fusion?

A poster gave this argument here:

---------------------

I'm no lawyer but I don't see anything in the Apple's SLA that prohibits running Snow Leopard client as a Fusion VM running under Lion.

"A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Upgrade license for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time."

The term "Apple Software" refers to Snow Leopard, not Lion. Therefore, if you install Snow Leopard as a VM (running under Lion) you are only running one copy of Snow Leopard on a single Apple-branded computer at a time, as per the license.

The term Apple Software can not collectively refer to both Snow Leopard and Lion because Lion has an entirely different SLA. And of course you need a different license to run Lion. i.e. you can't claim the license for Snow Leopard applies to Lion, or visa versa. You can't obtain the Lion installer without paying for it and run it by claiming you have already have a license for "Apple Software".

While the SLA clearly prohibits running Snow Leopard as a Fusion VM running under Snow Leopard (i.e. 2 copies of Snow Leopard on the same machine), I don't understand how there is a prohibition for running Snow Leopard (as a VM) and Lion at the same time.

---------------------------

And a VMware employee responded here (emphasis added):

--------------------------------

As much as you (and everyone else, so this stops popping up every so often) would like a lawyer's opinion on these forums, I doubt it'll ever happen - doing so might open up liability, and there's no benefit. So in leiu of that, please consider the following statements from someone who is not speaking in any official capacity but is vaguely familiar with the matter:

1. We have an obvious preference towards allowing as many guest OSes as possible to run in Fusion.

2. We work with Apple on both technical and general issues. This includes what they intend to be allowed to be virtualized, not just what's in the SLA.

3. We do not want to needlessly antagonize Apple (or any partner).

If you want to armchair lawyer it up, I personally don't care, but don't do it here and don't ask us to help you out. Take it up with Apple, and please don't make me lock this thread.

Don't get me wrong - I would love all OS X client SLAs to be relaxed, and I think it's great Apple has finally seen the light with Lion, but I'm not holding my breath for retroactive changes.

-------------------------------------

There is further discussion there as well.

Király wrote:

Kurt,

All of what you say in your post is already permitted by the Lion and Snow Leopard licenses. There is nothing in either license that prohibits running a single copy of Snow Leopard Client in a virtual machine, on a Mac running Lion, provided that the user has the proper licenses for each OS.

Asatoran's comment above "The current EULA for OSX allows for only Leopard Server and Snow LeopardServer to be run in a virtual machine on Apple branded hardware. Leopard "desktop" and Snow Leopard "desktop" are not allowed to be run in a virtual machine." is false. That statement has been repeated and repeated so often on the internet that is has reached the status of folklore, with soooo many people believing it.

I am going with VMware's interpretation of the EULA. I am NOT going by just "I read it somewhere." This is NOT "folklore." It is VMware's official statement regarding their discussion with Apple on virtualizing OSX. VMware, being the industry leader in virtualization, one has to respect their position and that their lawyers have done their job. If you go through VMware's forums, this stance is quite consistently repeated that only server versions of OSX 10.5 & 10.6 were allowed in virtual machines.

Me personally, I have issues with the EULA's wording and I do think it is vague enough to leave doubt. However, I am not naive enough to believe that my opinion of the law is sufficient to sway a judge. Thus I defer to VMware's legal resources and their interpretation. You may not agree with their interpretation, but you can hire your own lawyers to cover yourself in any legal proceeding that you find your self the target of. You may tell the judge that it is "folklore." I will continue to repeat VMware's statement until Apple or VMware change it.

Hi Larry,

I can't offer any examples of anybody successfully installing SL client on VM Fusion or Parallels. But before we jump to the "it's because SL Client isn't licensed for that" false conclusion, we need to look at the facts:

Fact: The makers of third party virtualization software prohibit Snow Leopard Client from being installed in a virtual machine.

Fact: The makers of third party virtualization software have never publicly given the reason why they prohibit Snow Leopard Client from being installed in their virtual machine.

Fact: Apple, Inc. has never publicly given the reason why the makers of third party virtualization software might prohibit Snow Leopard Client from being installed in their virtual machine.

Fact: The SLA for Mac OS X Snow Leopard licenses the user to run one copy of Snow Leopard, on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

Fact: The SLA for Mac OS X Snow Leopard applies to Snow Leopard only. It does not apply to Lion.

Fact: The SLA dor Mac OS X Lion applies to Lion only. It does not apply to Snow Leopard.

The above are all facts. No speculation. The problem arises when people speculate about the reasons for VM Fusion and Parallels refusing to let SL client be installed. Remember, that the actual reason has never been made public. Speculation that "Well, the reason must be that Snow Leopard Client is just not licensed to be run in a virtual machine" is just that - speculation, with no basis in actual fact. Somewhere along the line this speculation started to be presented as fact, by people without any authority to present it as fact, and it has been repeated throughout the internet for years now, becoming the stuff of folklore and legend.

It has no basis in publicly known facts. This can be confirmed by reading the Snow Leopard Client license, which contains no prohibition of any kind against running it in a virtual machine on Apple hardware.

Another, and I believe more likely, possible reason for VM Fusion and Parallels' prohibition of Snow Leopard Client might be that VM allowing Snow Leopard to be run in a virtual machine might lead to a situation where more than one copy of Snow Leopard is running simultaneously on the same Mac (i.e. Snow Leopard virtualized on a Mac running Snow Leopard.) That clearly would be a violation of the Snow Leopard license, which clearly states that only one copy at a time may run on a single Mac. But there's no problem with Snow Leopard running under virtualization on a Lion Mac, since each has its own license and each is only one copy. Perhaps it's just easier for Parallels and VM Fusion to just disallow it entirely than to have to check that the virtualized OS X is a different OS X version than the natively running one.

That's just my guess, and it's only speculation, but the "Snow Leopard Client is just not licensed to be run in a virtual machine" nonsense that has been parroted around the internet as "fact" for years now is nothing more than speculation as well, and incorrect speculation at that. It's time people realized it by simply reading the cotton pickin' Snow Leopard Software License Agreement which has been out in public for more than two years already.

If you were running a single copy of the software in a virtual machine, the virtual machine would have to be running on an operating system. That would be another copy of the software.

Nope, not if the VM OS was Snow Leopard and the natively running OS was Lion. "the software" in the Snow Leopard SLA refers to Snow Leopard only, not to Lion. It's not "another copy of the software", it's an entirely different copy of entirely different software, with its own separate license agreement.

See my above post for a more detailed explanation.