Is it possible yet to virtualize an OSX install without breaking the EULA?
I'd imagine the most common scenario for that would be macOS guests running on ESXi on Mac hardware, but my understanding is that e.g. a macOS guest under say Vbox or KVM with a linux host OS should also be "ok" in terms of the EULA.
Extremely limiting, and a real bummer.
Here in 2020, Apple invests a lot of resources to allow other OS's to be virtualized on macOS, but you still can't virtualize macOS on other OS's
The EULA does not say "you must virtualise macOS as a guest VM on a macOS host". It says you must do it on Mac hardware.
As I said above - ESXi on Mac with macOS guests is very much a thing that happens, at reasonable scale.
And the EULA clearly states it only allows up to 2 instances of macOS to be virtualized on a Mac computer already running Apple software, ie macOS.[1]
Of course you can run ESXi on Mac _hardware_. You can run nearly any OS or software on the Mac _hardware_. It's, until recently, pretty standard Intel x86 hardware.
You cannot, however, run macOS on Dell hardware as an ESXi guest. It very clearly violates Apple's EULA for macOS, even if you could trick it into doing so.
You can look around the internet for how to install a macOS guest on non Apple hardware running ESXi. It's not easy, and requires patching ESXi, and more.
Plus, the hosting company you linked to is clearly running things on Mac hardware. They even say it.
Doing otherwise would clearly violate Apple's EULA, which is what all this was originally about.
Have you read what I wrote? Or even what you asked originally?
You asked if macOS can be virtualised. The answer is yes, it can, on Mac hardware.
If you want to know if it can be virtualised on non-mac hardware, perhaps that's what you should have asked.
I guess that's fair enough. It used to be you couldn't virtualize OSX/macOS on anything, period. So this is a step in the right direction.
I suppose the historical lack of virtualization provisions in the license agreement led to the rise of insane concoctions like Imgix[1] - literally custom fabricating racks to hold a bunch of Mac Pros in a data center - absolutely insane, but necessary if you wanted a macOS/OSX stack.
I guess it's implied that virtualization would be hardware agnostic... since that's a primary reason to virtualize an OS.
Artificial limitations of only two (2) instances on only Apple hardware is absurd, and barely useful at all.
From kbutler's post[1]:
> "(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, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using macOS Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use."
This seems to imply you can only virtualize macOS on Apple hardware that is already running macOS. Since ESXi is a Type-1 Hypervisor and includes it's own kernel, etc, it seems dubious to wipe the OS, and install ESXi on Apple hardware. Perhaps you'll never be caught doing this... but it seems like it would still violate the EULA.
And yes, you can run macOS in ESXi, on mac hardware.
Has a single court of law yet made a ruling to set a precedent saying they are legally binding?
If no, I’ll just keep treating EULAs like what they are: a corporate wish list of unlawful restrictions they want to impose on their customers.
Why should anyone care about that?
Many of the use cases for virtualizing OSX are for business purposes. Not a great idea to build a business off pirated software and trampled software licenses.
By requesting and reading this reply you hereby grant me 50% of your future income the next 5 years.
By your logic, this statement should legally binding too, just because someone somewhere wrote it and put it on your screen.
Obviously it’s not though, so why should a EULA be different? It’s literally the same thing.
At the very least: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).