Not a lawyer, etc, but I read this as requiring the VM to be run on macOS host:
allowed "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"
IANAL either, and also I only read that PDF for a minute, but: maybe the Apple firmware running on the motherboard, a T2 chip etc, can satisfy the requirement that it is a computer "already running the Apple Software", even with Linux as the host OS. I think "the Apple Software" carries broad meaning in that agreement (and not very exclusive in its definition), e.g. clause 1: "The Apple software (including Boot ROM code)"... ?
The definition is broad (and self-referential, oddly): The "Apple software" is defined as "The Apple software (including Boot ROM code), any third party software, documentation, interfaces, content, fonts and any data accompanying this License"
If a subset such as "Boot ROM code" on the VM host was sufficient to allow for using "Apple software" beyond said subset in VM guests, then any other subset (such as "fonts") would also have to be sufficient, and no reasonable person would agree with such a thing. Therefore, it follows that the _entirety_ of "Apple software" must be "already running" on that "Mac Computer" before booting any VM guests that use "Apple software." This interpretation is supported by the use of the word "and."
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'.
But 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):
> [you are granted a license] 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"
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.
Additionally, 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.
I can't imagine any serious legal implications that really matter apart from to major corporation making major money off virtualising macOS somehow. To anyone else or any other angle relating to it, I don't think there's any worry whatsoever. It appears the Hackintosh community hasn't been sued into oblivion...
The agreement is pretty vague on the subject but it seems that you can get permission to virtualise on non-Apple hardware. How one does this and if anyone ever has is another matter entirely.
Apple does it internally, since they can turn off the mechanisms that stop macOS from booting on non-Apple hardware (last I heard on HN, they ran it on HP workstations?). I'd imagine that if you got JAMF, Adobe, and Microsoft in a room one of them has the magic incantation as well, considering the amount of Mac code they put out.
