Live data from Hacker News

Docker-OSX image removed after Apple reports copyright infringement

github.com

31–35 of 35 posts

Re: Docker-OSX image removed after Apple reports copyright infringement

#31
post #24
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice

what would be a fair alternative to the "undesirable" choice?

I don't really see that there is one. I think Docker was pushed into taking this action and didn't have any other reasonable course of action.

Re: Docker-OSX image removed after Apple reports copyright infringement

#32
post #5

Why? They transition away from x86 anyway

They want to make sure you can only develop Apps for Apple devices on expansive Apple devices.

You can develop apps for apple devices on a device that is cheaper than most apple devices.

Re: Docker-OSX image removed after Apple reports copyright infringement

#33
post #28
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There don't have to be damages?

You can create your own proprietary OS and never even sell it or use in your machines... It's yours and unless you authorize, others can't distribute it.

Makes sense, thanks.

Re: Docker-OSX image removed after Apple reports copyright infringement

#34
post #31
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what would be a fair alternative to the "undesirable" choice?

I don't really see that there is one. I think Docker was pushed into taking this action and didn't have any other reasonable course of action.

The other reasonable course of action would be to go to court, where a jury of average citizens could determine whether or not Apple or Docker is in the wrong and decide damages.

Docker wasn't pushed into taking the image down, they *decided* that they'd rather take the image down than have a jury decide who is in the wrong.

Re: Docker-OSX image removed after Apple reports copyright infringement

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Though thanks to the likes of Disney, not temporary enough to matter.
Post reply on HN