1. This project didn't take explicit permission from Apple to redistribute binaries
2. There are multiple jurisdictions where you don't need to explicitly have such permission, it is implied by law
3. Usage of this software implies you already have macOS system. I'm not a lawyer, but it looks to be covered by section 3 of macOS EULA.
4. There are existing precedents of redistribution of macOS binaries for multiple years aready:
- https://github.com/cirruslabs/macos-image-templates/pkgs/con...
- https://hub.docker.com/r/sickcodes/docker-osx
- https://app.vagrantup.com/jhcook/boxes/macos-sierra
And so on.
Unless you're producing fully static binaries (or static enough that they don't bind to non-redistributable things) it'd be a yes (it would not be much of a container if it needed non-packaged things)
The screenshot points out a ghcr.io URL that lands on these packages: https://github.com/orgs/macOScontainers/packages?repo_name=m...
Edit: There's a note here†, so at least there is some consideration for licensing. No idea if it holds ground.
† https://github.com/macOScontainers/macos-jail/blob/9b1d5b141...
- there has been images like that circulating on well-known platforms† for a long time.
- I never heard of a single DMCA on any of these, even though they were on much clearer violation of the license.
Apple might be pulling a Hackintosh manoeuvre here.
† an example, there are many others: https://app.vagrantup.com/jhcook/boxes/macos-sierra
Or is this just the fully open source Darwin core? That wouldn't likely be super compatible with a ton of production software? I need more explanation of what is actually going on here because it sounds like a good way to get sued.