11–20 of 35 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what copyright infringement is.
There don't have to be damages?
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.
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.)
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.
Why? They transition away from x86 anyway
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There don't have to be damages?
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.
What does this mean? If they could choose any course of action with no consequences they'd probably choose to do nothing.
The image was removed from Docker Hub, but the GitHub repository which contains the script to build the Docker image is untouched.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.