I don't see any legitimate existential risk for the devs or project?
ToS are only relevant for those who are a party to it - this is the users responsibility.
Historically, while Apple is protective of their IP they have not been acting like Nintendo with regards to emulators and hackintosh and such in court.
Weird concern unless you can point to actual threats or precedence.
> Weird flex
On the contrary, it's a legitimately useful feature that has popular demand.
In the article it's mentioned a docker version of this got a dmca takedown.
Apple does not license MacOS for use on hardware they don't sell. It can be argued this feature does not have any legitimate functionality.
At the same time, if you must decide to violate the license terms of OSX it should be done in a separate fork.
GitHub will just delete the whole project if Apple ever catches wind of it and complains. The DMCA isn't exactly a court proceeding, usually the content host determines the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
That sucks for everyone who decides to use it for legitimate purposes.
To be blunt Apple gate keeps there software and build tools behind expensive hardware. If you disagree, use different software.
Edit: Given I'm 90% sure they aren't running Arm OSX anyway, this is going to be irrelevant in about 2 years.
ToS are only relevant for those who are a party to it - this is the users responsibility.
Historically, while Apple is protective of their IP they have not been acting like Nintendo with regards to emulators and hackintosh and such in court.
Weird concern unless you can point to actual threats or precedence.
> Weird flex
On the contrary, it's a legitimately useful feature that has popular demand.