Hi all,

It'd be very much appreciated if you could guide me through how to install Leopard server as a virtual machine in Fusion. I understand that it is not standard yet, but is there a workaround to enable this option ?

I'm running Fusion on the top of my MacBook Pro's Leopard.

Thanks.

P.S. I don't mind using Parallels if Parallels is an option.

This is only supported by the Beta version of Parallels Server for Mac and then only when you are using Leopard Server as the host operating system.

Yep - that's correct.

VMware will have a server product for Mac available soon though - they demonstrated it at MacWorld '08.

That's disappointing I want it now :P

Fusion's virtual support will also be the same as Parallels, in that you can only run it in a VM when OSX Server is the host OS. Anything else is a) against Apple's software licencing, and b) breaks.

Try out the Parallels Server Beta. It works well. Of course if the problem is that you don't have enough Leopard Server licences then I suspect you'll have the same problem with VMware's product when it arrives. Time will tell but I gather the restriction is one imposed by Apple not Parallels.

As far as I know, there's no technological restrictions on running a Mac VM on say, a Linux, Windows or even a non-Server version of Mac OS X - it's just Apple's licensing.

It would be very handy to run OS X in a VM on a Windows box, but there's something about that I'm sure Apple doesn't like

I'd love to be able to run Leopard Server in a VM on Leopard Client. C'mon Apple what's wrong with that?

There is nothing in the EULA (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf) that says you cannot run OS X in a virtual machine. The single use license allows you to run the software on one Apple branded machine.

One could argue whether a VM itself is a 'machine' or if 'machine' refers to the physical hardware. If the latter then two things can happen.
1) the user runs an OS X VM in parallels/vmware on an OS X host.
2) the user installs Windows or Linux via bootcamp and runs OS X in a VM.

In both cases the 'machine' is an apple branded computer and therefore complies with the EULA. A side effect is that if running an XP host, the VM has no way to check if the host 'machine' is an Apple or not. There would be ways to verify the hardware no doubt.

The point is though that the EULA as it stands makes no mention of virtual machines, just Apple branded ones.

Very interesting - then one must wonder why we aren't seeing a version of Parallels or VMWare aimed at running OS X client on OS X client? I'm guessing it's the two companies keeping on Apple's good-side more than anything.

There are probably technical reasons as well and bypassing those limitations (i.e. OS X checking the hardware on install/run) may infringe on Apple copyright.

But back in PPC days, one could run a PPC linux and then OS X on top of that via Mac-on-Linux with no legal backlash from Apple.....why the same isn't being done with Intel is any ones guess.

I don't believe it's the EULA at issue here but rather special licence terms that Parallels and VMware have obtained from Apple to enable support for OS X running in virtual machines. It's not as though they are using "hackintosh"-style methods.

That's really shit.. I just wish I can fumble around with OSX server at home, or just on a VM or something.. would benefit me with work big time..

It'd be great if someone could find a way to fool Parallels Sever to see Leopard Client as Leopard Server.
Problem is solved, but where is that 'someone' ? lol

Incorrect.

The document you linked to is for Mac OS X 10.5 Client, not Server. The appropriate version of the Client license reads thus:

This is pretty clear-cut: one computer, no more than one copy of the OS at a time.

The version of the OS X 10.5 Server SLA (PDF) is almost identical, except it's Section 2 reads differently:

So there you go. OS X Server can VM OS X Server. You can't (according to the SLA) VM OS X Client on OS X Server, or any version of OS X on OS X Client.

Because this did not break the SLA's rule of "one Mac, one Mac OS". It didn't matter if you were using a non-Mac OS to host Mac OS, as long as 1) you were using Apple hardware, and 2) you only ran one instance of Mac OS.

EDIT: Interesting thought, as I re-read this post ... note the phrase in Section 2 of both SLAs that reads, "You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so." ... that last phrase, missing from the SLA for 10.4, is where OSx86project and Psystar fall foul.