Of course the OS X EULA limits use of OS X to "Apple branded hardware",
which is why the topic is disallowed at the Ubuntu forums because they
run a tight ship and do not allow any discussion of "illegal activities".
I doubt anyone here in this developer forum would openly advocate
violating Apple's EULA, and for the record I don't either.
That said, apparently a great many people run OS X in VMs on non-Apple
systems, and even as the main OS on non-Apple systems, so while Apple's
intent is clear it's at least physically, if not legally, possible to
bypass it.
I observe that there are many thousands of Web pages devoted to the
topic, and even one site that sells non-Apple-branded computers on which
you can choose to have them install your choice of Windows, Linux, or OS X:
<http://quocomputer.com/>
Quo's been doing this since 2009, and last time I talked with the owner
about this he says he's not received a cease-and-desist from Apple yet.
What distinguishes Quo from Psystar and other true cloners is that Quo
doesn't *ship* computers with OS X installed. What you buy is a
computer with no OS, and then as a separate service you can elect to
have them install any of the three most popular OSes you choose - even
all three in a triple-boot configuration.
This article gives a little more background on Quo:
<http://www.tuaw.com/2010/09/10/psystar-is-dead-long-live-quo-computer/>
Whether this "service" approach will pass muster with Apple's legal team
is beyond the scope of my knowledge. Neither Quo nor AFAIK any of the
hackintosh web sites have received cease-and-desist letters from Apple
Legal, so it appears the legality of this approach may be currently
untested.
It may be that if the clause restricting use of OS X to "Apple branded
computers" were tested in court, it may not survive and would open the
door to similar "services", which would explain why the multinational
giant's vast legal resources have not been applied to such cases. With
OS X's mere ~10% of the desktop market there's no way anti-monopoly laws
could come into play, but there may be an argument for restraint of
trade. I dunno; I'm no lawyer.
In some respects the situation is similar to the famous Nintendo game
cartridge suits. But it's worth noting that while the results have been
mixed across different jurisdictions, aside from an anomalous victory
for the Divineo Group in France the global trend has apparently favored
Nintendo:
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/184075/nintendo_loses_major_antipiracy_lawsuit_in_france.html>
So it may also simply be that Apple Legal has bigger fish to fry, and
just hasn't bothered sicking the dogs on the hackintosh community. Yet.
I would never advise anyone to willfully violate any EULA, but
apparently if one chooses to do so by installing a purchased copy of OS
X onto hardware of his own choosing and keeps a low profile about it,
the odds of getting in the cross-hairs of Apple Legal appear slim.
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World
LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
