Docker-OSX image removed after Apple reports copyright infringement
github.comThe image maintainer wrote a short blog post in 2021 putting forth the rationale and good faith intentions of the project as a resource for security research.
https://sick.codes/is-hackintosh-osx-kvm-or-docker-osx-legal...
The image was removed from Docker Hub, but the GitHub repository which contains the script to build the Docker image is untouched.
Which is fair. OS X isn't open source so you can't just go and distribute binaries of it without Apple's permission. The Github repo probably requires you to bring your own binaries (presumably obtained from Apple in their approved way). So, that's perfectly fine. You can build and use the docker image for your own personal use. That's fair use and I doubt Apple would object to that. You just can't distribute the images to third parties without a license.
How do i legally purchase a license for the binaries?
IANAL, but as far as I understand, the OSX license essentially allows running it in whatever way you want, as long as it happens on Apple-approved hardware. Running in a VM is fine, as long as it actually happens on a real Mac.
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"
Buy a mac. It comes with the OS. Otherwise, talk to Apple but they probably don't do direct sales of their OS. That might be inconvenient for you but that doesn't change the legal situation that you need a license to distribute binaries that belong to them.
> the legal situation that you need a license to distribute binaries that belong to them
Legally speaking, they don't own the binaries but just have a temporary monopoly.
Though thanks to the likes of Disney, not temporary enough to matter.
OSX-KVM may be next. I know it contains many copies of the "pleasedontsteal" key and it used to have direct downloads for full OSX images, but that was wiped from the repo years ago (multiple forks still have it though).
How is it copyright infringement? Who was going to buy a Mac but then found this and was like "Oh, this docker thing is way better". If you've ever tried this docker thing, you'd know it's a pain in the ass. :)
It's laughable, but no surprise the army of lawyers at AAPL needs something to do to justify their existence.
That's not what copyright infringement is.
There don't have to be damages?
You can create your own proprietary OS and never even sell it or use in your machines... It's yours and unless you authorize, others can't distribute it.
Makes sense, thanks.
For Docker to decide to remove the image from their website? Obviously not.
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.
> Docker runs the service and can do whatever they want.
What does this mean? If they could choose any course of action with no consequences they'd probably choose to do nothing.
They can choose to follow the law or to fight the claim in court. Or do nothing and get sued to oblivion. They have choices.
what would be a fair alternative to the "undesirable" choice?
I don't really see that there is one. I think Docker was pushed into taking this action and didn't have any other reasonable course of action.
The other reasonable course of action would be to go to court, where a jury of average citizens could determine whether or not Apple or Docker is in the wrong and decide damages.
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.
"Caving in to the bully with expensive lawyers" isn't synonymous with "following the law", FYI.
that's very important to point out yes! it's not like apple software products are covered by copyright law after all. it's the big bad lawyers that's ruling the day here.
Why?
They transition away from x86 anyway
> Why?
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.)
Why comment on something that you have never used?
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.
Asahi Linux? That's not osx, why would they care about that and what grounds would they have to take action?
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
Money.
Damn son, way to show you know nothing about what you are doing.
They want to make sure you can only develop Apps for Apple devices on expansive Apple devices.
Yup, even in the cloud. Apple doesn't care about developers.
You can develop apps for apple devices on a device that is cheaper than most apple devices.