OSX Licensing for remote access.

Question

Level 1

5 points

OSX Licensing for remote access.

I am starting a new development project and team and want to invest in a nice Mac Pro server that the team could all use for iOS development and not need to buy them all new laptops. I found a few remote access products that basically turn the Mac server into a "Terminal Server" complete with responding to RDP clients.

One product is ACRDS from Aquaconnect The other product is iRAPP TS from CodeRebel Both of these look like perfect solutions until you start to read the SLA for OSX 10.9. (Sections below) Which basically states that only one remote user can "control" the system at once, among other restrictions. My question is how do I go about getting permission to do this? Do I need to buy additional OSX licenses? The Apple store was no help at all for this and I am at a loss as to who to contact. The companies selling the products simply suggest you should "contact Apple."

So here I am... anyone have any ideas? Did I make sense at all ? 🙂 Thanks for any help!

Remote Desktop Connections

.

Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, when

remotely connecting from another computer or electronic device (each a “Device”) to an Apple-

branded computer that is running the Apple Software (for purposes of this Section, such Apple-

branded computer is referred to as the “Home Mac”), whether through the Screen Sharing

feature or through any other means:

only one (1) Device may remotely connect at any one time, whether directly or

indirectly, to control the graphical desktop session of the Apple Software that is running

and being displayed on the Home Mac; and

(ii) a reasonable number of Devices may remotely connect at the same time for the sole

purpose of simultaneously observing the same graphical desktop session of the Apple

Software that is running and being displayed on the Home Mac, as long as they do not

control the Apple Software in any way; but

(iii) only one (1) Apple-branded Device may remotely connect at any one time, whether

directly or indirectly, to control a separate graphical desktop session of the Apple

Software that is different from the one running and being displayed on the Home Mac,

and such connection may only be made through the Screen Sharing feature of the Apple

Software.

Except as expressly permitted in this Section 2G, or except as otherwise licensed by Apple, you

agree not to use the Apple Software, or any of its functionality, in connection with service

bureau, time-sharing, terminal sharing or other similar types of services, whether such services

are being provided within your own organization or to third parties

There is also another section:

Other Use Restrictions

. The grants set forth in this License do not permit you to, and you

agree not to, install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to

enable others to do so. Except as otherwise permitted by the terms of this License or otherwise

licensed by Apple: only one user may use the Apple Software at a time, and (ii) you may not

make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be run or used by multiple

computers at the same time. You may not rent, lease, lend, sell, redistribute or sublicense the

Apple Software

Mac Pro

Posted on Sep 17, 2014 3:21 PM

Reply

Answer 1

etresoft

Level 9

57,230 points

Jul 19, 2017 2:24 PM in response to murali_fuji

Hello murali_fuji,

There has been no change to the laws of physics in three years. Networks are still slower than you would like them to be. Mac Pros haven't changed at all. Xcode uses more CPU and RAM than ever.

And if all those practical hurdles aren't enough for you, consider: https://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf and pay attention to this clause:

This Agreement does not allow the Apple Software or Services to be made available over a network where they could be run or used by multiple computers at the same time, unless otherwise expressly permitted in writing by Apple. Further, unless otherwise expressly permitted by Apple in writing, You agree not to rent, lease, lend, upload to or host on any website or server, sell, redistribute, or sublicense the Apple Software and Apple Services, in whole or in part, or to enable others to do so.

In short, if you want to get an official 'ok' to share one mac pro server concurrently by multiple users, all you need to do is ask Apple. Apple might say no and might take a closer look at your developer account activity.

Reply

Answer 2

Jul 19, 2017 1:35 PM in response to Youngm99xj

Did you find an answer to your question? I am trying to do the same and wondering if you got the official 'ok' to share one mac pro server concurrently by multiple users and use xcode from licensing perspective. Appreciate your time to respond to this request. Thanks.

Reply

Answer 3

etresoft

Level 9

57,230 points

Sep 17, 2014 5:18 PM in response to Youngm99xj

Licensing isn't the issue. I'm sure the server license would have no such restriction. Technically the Mac is UNIX, but it really isn't designed to be a server. Even if you had a direct ethernet connection, running just one remote terminal would be painful. There is no way you would be able to get everyone logged on. I don't see any way that a server would save you any money. The Mac is really the top-of-the-line client system. Even people who don't target Macs still use them. The connect just great to any Linux server you could imagine, without the hassles of setting up Linux on the client side.

Reply

Answer 4

Youngm99xj Author

Level 1

5 points

Sep 17, 2014 7:15 PM in response to etresoft

Licensing is every bit of the issue and the entire point of my question. 🙂

I have tested this already and proven functionality with between 20 and 40 remote clients. Some of those with bandwidth challenges haven't had a great experience (mostly very remote countries.) but the rest of the testers were rather pleased with the results. I am very well aware of the OS and it's origin and I would also point out the "OSX Server" is no longer a branch of the OS but rather an application you now install from the Apple store. This happened somewhere around Lion/ML but in any case if you review the EULA/SLA for the OSX Server application it doesn't grant any more license privileges for anything and thus doesn't solve or help with this.

What I am looking for here is an official answer as to how this can be "otherwise licensed by Apple." Anyone had experience with this?

Reply

Answer 5

Sep 17, 2014 7:18 PM in response to Youngm99xj

What I am looking for here is an official answer as to how this can be "otherwise licensed by Apple."

Then you are looking in the wrong place. This is a user to user forum, Apple does not participate here and will never respond to a post.

If you need an offical anawer you will need to contact Apple.

Reply

Answer 6

Youngm99xj Author

Level 1

5 points

Sep 17, 2014 8:58 PM in response to Frank Caggiano

Thanks Frank! That's helpful as I wasn't quite sure.

Thus, I am reduced to my only last question.

Anyone have any experience with this? Gone through this with Apple?

Thanks!

Reply

Answer 7

etresoft

Level 9

57,230 points

Sep 18, 2014 4:48 AM in response to Youngm99xj

Youngm99xj wrote:

I have tested this already and proven functionality with between 20 and 40 remote clients.

You have 40 people running Xcode simultaneously (and remotely) on the same machine and they are pleased with the results? Hey, if the laws of physics don't apply to you, why should copyright law?

Reply

Answer 8

Youngm99xj Author

Level 1

5 points

Sep 18, 2014 2:39 PM in response to etresoft

That's pretty funny, but there was no realm or theory of Physics involved at all with the exception of perhaps Chaos Theory. 🙂

There were some erratic moments for sure which perhaps that could explain. I would blame most on xCode and Java...

However in the end there was no need to irradiate the Mac Pro and it never moved in any way during the testing.

Not sure why you are so negative about it, it actually performed well.

Reply

Answer 9

etresoft

Level 9

57,230 points

Sep 18, 2014 4:55 PM in response to Youngm99xj

Youngm99xj wrote:

Not sure why you are so negative about it, it actually performed well.

It sure didn't perform well when would try it with another machine across the room. I don't know what your plans for for iOS, Java, and "xCode" but it sure sounds like you don't know what you are getting yourself in to.

Reply