4 ms·
The image was removed from Docker Hub, but the GitHub repository which contains the script to build the Docker image is untouched.
by 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 agoWhich 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 agoHow do i legally purchase a license for the binaries?
- jillesvangurp 2y agoBuy 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 agoThough thanks to the likes of Disney, not temporary enough to matter.
- miki123211 2y agoIANAL, 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"