To add some more context, I think I've realised that the entitlement is a red herring and not actually anything to do with my problem. If we had an app of our own that started the driver that ran simultaneously with the consuming app. Then that would work because the entitlement you mentioned would allow their app to connect to the driver hosted by our app. We're after a solution that allows us to package everything into their app(s) easily though

Apologies for the double post, after posting and refreshing the page to see if there was any update on the 'review' of my comment - it was gone, and nothing to indicate it would be posted. Additionally, there is no option to delete a comment.

Thanks for your response ssmith_c, unfortunately that's not quite what I'm looking for. We're using this entitlement, with it - you must specify the bundle id of the consuming application in the bundle id of the driverkit extension. This is my problem, we have a consumer that wants to make two apps - for us that would mean distributing two instances of the driverkit extension, with only the bundle id changed.

Thanks for your response ssmith_c Perhaps it wasn't clear - We're using this entitlement, but it doesn't allow any third party user client. Your driverkit extension's bundle id needs to include the bundle id of the app it's going to be used in, and that's our problem. We've got a consumer that wants to make two apps, we don't want to distribute a unique instance of the driverkit extension with a different bundle id for each. It wouldn't be very scalable.