6 ms·

Docker-OSX image removed after Apple reports copyright infringement

90 points by doesnotexist 2y ago

doesnotexist 2y ago
The 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/ https://sick.codes/is-hackintosh-osx-kvm-or-docker-osx-legal...
ranger_danger 2y ago
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).
TZubiri 2y ago
[flagged]
gotschi_ 2y ago
Why? They transition away from x86 anyway
- delfinom 2y ago
  Damn son, way to show you know nothing about what you are doing.
- tiku 2y ago
  Money.
- deathanatos 2y ago
  > 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.)
  - moondev 2y ago
    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.
    - ffsm8 2y ago
      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
- preisschild 2y ago
  They want to make sure you can only develop Apps for Apple devices on expansive Apple devices.
  - hughesjj 2y ago
    Yup, even in the cloud. Apple doesn't care about developers.
  - wang_li 2y ago
    You can develop apps for apple devices on a device that is cheaper than most apple devices.
conradev 2y ago
The image was removed from Docker Hub, but the GitHub repository which contains the script to build the Docker image is untouched.
- jillesvangurp 2y ago
  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.
  - winternewt 2y ago
    How do i legally purchase a license for the binaries?
    - jillesvangurp 2y ago
      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.
      - account42 2y ago
        > 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.
        bigfatkitten 2y ago
        Though thanks to the likes of Disney, not temporary enough to matter.
metadat 2y ago
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.
- dboreham 2y ago
  That's not what copyright infringement is.
  - metadat 2y ago
    There don't have to be damages?
    - slimsag 2y ago
      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.
      - Y_Y 2y ago
        > 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.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        exe34 2y ago
        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.

90 points by doesnotexist 2y ago

The 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/ https://sick.codes/is-hackintosh-osx-kvm-or-docker-osx-legal...

ranger_danger 2y ago

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).

TZubiri 2y ago

[flagged]

gotschi_ 2y ago

Why? They transition away from x86 anyway

delfinom 2y ago
Damn son, way to show you know nothing about what you are doing.
tiku 2y ago
Money.
deathanatos 2y ago
> 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.)
- moondev 2y ago
  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.
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    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
preisschild 2y ago
They want to make sure you can only develop Apps for Apple devices on expansive Apple devices.
- hughesjj 2y ago
  Yup, even in the cloud. Apple doesn't care about developers.
- wang_li 2y ago
  You can develop apps for apple devices on a device that is cheaper than most apple devices.

conradev 2y ago

The image was removed from Docker Hub, but the GitHub repository which contains the script to build the Docker image is untouched.

jillesvangurp 2y ago
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.
- winternewt 2y ago
  How do i legally purchase a license for the binaries?
  - jillesvangurp 2y ago
    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.
    - account42 2y ago
      > 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.
      - bigfatkitten 2y ago
        Though thanks to the likes of Disney, not temporary enough to matter.

metadat 2y ago

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.

dboreham 2y ago
That's not what copyright infringement is.
- metadat 2y ago
  There don't have to be damages?
  - slimsag 2y ago
    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.
    - Y_Y 2y ago
      > 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.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - exe34 2y ago
        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.