https://sick.codes/is-hackintosh-osx-kvm-or-docker-osx-legal...
It's laughable, but no surprise the army of lawyers at AAPL needs something to do to justify their existence.
They transition away from x86 anyway
It seems like the repo's primary reasons are security research on macOS.
> They transition away from x86 anyway
I'm not sure what that has to do with running a Docker container. Containers support arm64; presumably you could do arm64 in both host and guest OS. (IDK if this particular image does; never used it.)
The fact that containers supporting arm64 is not relevant because this project requires x86. Combine that with the fact that apple no longer sells x86 hardware - it would seem that them simply doing nothing would allow the project to fade off organically.
The idea of them taking specific action to kill this after ignoring it for years is very puzzling. It feels like they have given more time and attention to this project than asahi.
Purely speculating here, but naybe they're taking action precisely because it's losing significance in the CI context? They might've seen the value in it before, and only see issues with it now
Depending on how you look at it, the license is either "free" or "not that free, but actually comes with a computer to use it with"
Legally speaking, they don't own the binaries but just have a temporary monopoly.
Docker runs the service and can do whatever they want.
If Apple sends a cease and desist, and Docker decides they'd rather take it down than risk going to court with Apple /to determine if there were damages/ - then they're free to do so.
What does this mean? If they could choose any course of action with no consequences they'd probably choose to do nothing.
Docker wasn't pushed into taking the image down, they *decided* that they'd rather take the image down than have a jury decide who is in the wrong.