It appears the Hackintosh community hasn't been sued into oblivion.I have the following docker compose file: version: '3.0' To anyone else or any other angle relating to it, I don't think there's any worry whatsoever. I can't imagine any serious legal implications that really matter apart from to major corporation making major money off virtualising macOS somehow. Their clear syntax of repeating "the Apple Software" in the context of both guest and host environment indicates that what is used virtually must also be used on the host.Īdditionally, you probably couldn't get out of it by dual booting with Linux and saying that 'aha, see, I have mac running on the host machine I'm fine', the grammar of the words "that is already running" indicates that macOS must be running while using macOS as a guest, under their license.
#Docker mac os companity software#
> to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software"
#Docker mac os companity license#
Upon second look, it would seem that the spirit of what they mean by "the Apple Software" is 'the whole set of standard Apple software (that comes pre-installed on the Apple machine'.īut actually, even more strongly in favour of interpreting that they don't specifically license macOS for use on a Linux host via their agreement, is the syntax of 2.B.iii itself (italicisation for emphasis): They are no longer that good about helping people support Linux either -you would think that when they deprecate a machine, they would at least have the decency to open source all of its drivers.(and have pre-negotiated the legal rights to do so). But nowadays, Apple is invalidating old hardware platforms for superfluous reasons, like abandoning 32-bit apps, enforcing their OEM cryptographic authority (with T2 chip) and getting into it with nVidia (granted nVidia screwed up big time with those GPU chips that blow) or more recently, getting into it with Intel (which has caused agonizing supply-chain issues for Apple). When they were on rough times, everyone understood about needing to break compatibility with old hardware (that nobody really cared about anyway because, despite it's horrendous price, was super obsolete due to the rate of Moore's law back then). With 40 years of Apple development under my belt, I can safely say that Apple used to be great about supporting older hardware. >it's too bad Apple doesn't allow licenses for running things headlessly like this.Īgreed, but I think Apple wants to drive everyone to a hardware solution.Īt one point 'enterprise-ish' hardware was offered, but now it seems that it'd be in their interest to offer virtualization licenses while trying to smooth out whatever troubles exist between their software and the major VM hyper-visor offers out there - mostly since there are huges holes in their hardware offerings for those seeking to do 'enterprise-ish' things en masse. The answer, of course, is that anyone who builds product based on a legally grey area is at risk when that area begins to crumble. The hammer may fall one day, but so far 'why are we worried about a legal response that doesn't seem to exist?'. How I interpreted the use of the koan : Apple has no history of legally chasing those who virtualize their operating system as this is a non-topic thusfar - who cares? You over-philosophized to the point of bringing their kitschy koan off-topic.
The performance would likely be abysmal though! Then you could probably run this in a fully isolated container again. I wonder if you could get macOS to boot in QEMU without hardware assisted virtualization. Wine, by the way, definitely works quite well inside Docker.Īlso, one final thought. if that could be made to work for the entire system (highly unlikely)ĭarling is more like Wine in that it runs native executables for one platform as native processes on another platform using a compatibility layer. What would be a lot more analogous to macOS in docker would be running Darling in docker. So don't think of this as macOS in docker wherever docker runs. I'm referring to AWS Fargate, Google Cloud Run, GKE, AKS, here.) (This "Docker as a subset of Linux" is also what you end up getting from most "Docker as a service" platforms offered by clouds, including kubernetes. SYS_PTRACE, cgroups come to mind as not allowed within the container. With many common features removed by default. You can think of the Docker platform itself as subset of the Linux platform. It also uses hardware assisted virtualization (KVM) which is not going to be available most of the time Docker is.
#Docker mac os companity full#
It's really a full system emulator (qemu) running inside Docker, using root privileges on the container that make the isolation very weak (-privileged).
0 kommentar(er)
