3 ms·
CI runners are kinda different than VM hosting. I mean sure you could abuse them to run sshd and interactively use them for a while :D but the service as intend
by floatboth 6y ago
CI runners are kinda different than VM hosting. I mean sure you could abuse them to run sshd and interactively use them for a while :D but the service as intended is that you don't "rent" the VM in any meaningful way, it's fully theirs, they just run your one single job on it and show you the logs.
- withinrafael 6y agoPrior to Big Sur, it's my understanding the macOS SLA explicitly disallowed this. Snippet: > Except as otherwise permitted by the terms of this License or otherwise licensed by Apple: (i) 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.
- floatboth 6y agoYou could argue that the CI service is the "one user", and it doesn't make the software available over the network, it only makes logs available over the network. This seems like a gray area, "does running a build on your behalf constitute renting out the build environment to you" is a very hard question.
- mattnewton 6y agoI am not a lawyer but it doesn't seem like a gray area at all to me; you are providing inputs to GitHub and they provide the outputs of mac software over the internet. What's maybe more of a gray area is whether apple can assert the user doesnt have these rights in their eula.
- floatboth 6y agoBut "they provide the outputs" is the gray area – does providing the outputs count as renting out the software itself?
- mattnewton 6y agoI can't see a way to frame it otherwise - it's certainly functionally identical in terms of effect, both on the end user's need and on Apple's interests to sell hardware.