Return to Answer

The existing answers focus on "legal" issues and censorship. I think that is the wrong way to frame it, and not the basis on which a site scope decision should be made.

Legality

None of this comes under criminal law, so it isn't even a question of legality. If there is a legal issue, it is whether Apple's EULA is enforceable in a way that would allow Apple to collect damages. If Apple won a court ruling affirming its claims, or another party won a ruling that told Apple to go suck wind, that would provide a basis for discussing site policy.

Short of a court ruling, there is simply the EULA. Apple can specify any terms they want; it's their product. You don't own it, you only pay to use it within Apple's terms. If you don't like the terms, buy something else. If you agree to Apple's terms, your voluntary agreement is what binds you to them.

Implications for the site

Let's put aside the business issues, like do we want to expose SE to potential heavy-handed action by Apple; e.g., using deep pockets to win a judgement against SE regardless of merit.

Most questions of scope differentiate technical factors to define what is within SU's bailiwick. Devices other than computers and their peripherals are off-topic. Software recommendations go to another site. The community is expert on those kinds of issues and it's appropriate to decide scope by consensus.

What makes Hackintosh special is the legal and ethical issues people associate with it. I suggest that those kinds of issues would be more appropriately driven by core, guiding principles. If we decide, as a matter of policy, to make Hackintosh questions officially off-topic, it should be based on core principles rather than the winds of consensus.

Suggestion

Let me suggest that a guiding principle would be a version of the Hippocratic Oath, "First do no harm." We don't make IT administrators' lives miserable by advising people on how to circumvent their policies. We don't use this open forum to instruct people on how to create malware. We don't help people circumvent the terms of service with their Internet provider. If they want the ISP's service, they agree to abide by their terms. How is that really different?

I think the same logic applies to EULAs. Two other parties have agreed to terms and it's inappropriate for us to inject ourselves into the relationship and facilitate one of those parties violating their agreement.

The existing answers focus on "legal" issues and censorship. I think that is the wrong way to frame it, and not the basis on which a site scope decision should be made.

Legality

None of this comes under criminal law, so it isn't even a question of legality. If there is a legal issue, it is whether Apple's EULA is enforceable in a way that would allow Apple to collect damages. If Apple won a court ruling affirming its claims, or another party won a ruling that told Apple to go suck wind, that would provide a basis for discussing site policy.

Short of a court ruling, there is simply the EULA. Apple can specify any terms they want; it's their product. You don't own it, you only pay to use it within Apple's terms. If you don't like the terms, buy something else. If you agree to Apple's terms, your voluntary agreement is what binds you to them.

Implications for the site

Let's put aside the business issues, like do we want to expose SE to potential heavy-handed action by Apple; e.g., using deep pockets to win a judgement against SE regardless of merit.

Most questions of scope differentiate technical factors to define what is within SU's bailiwick. Devices other than computers and their peripherals are off-topic. Software recommendations go to another site. The community is expert on those kinds of issues and it's appropriate to decide scope by consensus.

What makes Hackintosh special is the legal and ethical issues people associate with it. I suggest that those kinds of issues would be more appropriately driven by core, guiding principles. If we decide, as a matter of policy, to make Hackintosh questions officially off-topic, it should be based on core principles rather than the winds of consensus.

Suggestion

Let me suggest that a guiding principle would be a version of the Hippocratic Oath, "First do no harm." We don't make IT administrators' lives miserable by advising people on how to circumvent their policies. We don't use this open forum to instruct people on how to create malware. We don't help people circumvent the terms of service with their Internet provider. If they want the ISP's service, they agree to abide by their terms. How is that really different?

I think the same logic applies to EULAs. Two other parties have agreed to terms and it's inappropriate for us to inject ourselves into the relationship and facilitate one of those parties violating their agreement. To Gilles' comment, below, to not facilitate violating the EULA is not putting us in a role of "enforcing" the EULA. It's remaining uninvolved.

The existing answers focus on "legal" issues and censorship. I think that is the wrong way to frame it, and not the basis on which a site scope decision should be made.

Legality

None of this comes under criminal law, so it isn't even a question of legality. If there is a legal issue, it is whether Apple's EULA is enforceable in a way that would allow Apple to collect damages. If Apple won a court ruling affirming its claims, or another party won a ruling that told Apple to go suck wind, that would provide a basis for discussing site policy.

Short of a court ruling, there is simply the EULA. Apple can specify any terms they want; it's their product. You don't own it, you only pay to use it within Apple's terms. If you don't like the terms, buy something else. If you agree to Apple's terms, your voluntary agreement is what binds you to them.

Implications for the site

Let's put aside the business issues, like do we want to expose SE to potential heavy-handed action by Apple; e.g., using deep pockets to win a judgement against SE regardless of merit.

Most questions of scope differentiate technical factors to define what is within SU's bailiwick. Devices other than computers and their peripherals are off-topic. Software recommendations go to another site. The community is expert on those kinds of issues and it's appropriate to decide scope by consensus.

What makes Hackintosh special is the legal and ethical issues people associate with it. I suggest that those kinds of issues would be more appropriately driven by core, guiding principles. If we decide, as a matter of policy, to make Hackintosh questions officially off-topic, it should be based on core principles rather than the winds of consensus.

Suggestion

Let me suggest that a guiding principle would be a version of the Hippocratic Oath, "First do no harm." We don't make IT administrators' lives miserable by advising people on how to circumvent their policies. We don't use this open forum to instruct people on how to create malware. We don't help people circumvent the terms of service with their Internet provider. If you want the ISP's service, you agree to abide by their terms. How is that really different?

The existing answers focus on "legal" issues and censorship. I think that is the wrong way to frame it, and not the basis on which a site scope decision should be made.

Legality

None of this comes under criminal law, so it isn't even a question of legality. If there is a legal issue, it is whether Apple's EULA is enforceable in a way that would allow Apple to collect damages. If Apple won a court ruling affirming its claims, or another party won a ruling that told Apple to go suck wind, that would provide a basis for discussing site policy.

Short of a court ruling, there is simply the EULA. Apple can specify any terms they want; it's their product. You don't own it, you only pay to use it within Apple's terms. If you don't like the terms, buy something else. If you agree to Apple's terms, your voluntary agreement is what binds you to them.

Implications for the site

Let's put aside the business issues, like do we want to expose SE to potential heavy-handed action by Apple; e.g., using deep pockets to win a judgement against SE regardless of merit.

Most questions of scope differentiate technical factors to define what is within SU's bailiwick. Devices other than computers and their peripherals are off-topic. Software recommendations go to another site. The community is expert on those kinds of issues and it's appropriate to decide scope by consensus.

What makes Hackintosh special is the legal and ethical issues people associate with it. I suggest that those kinds of issues would be more appropriately driven by core, guiding principles. If we decide, as a matter of policy, to make Hackintosh questions officially off-topic, it should be based on core principles rather than the winds of consensus.

Suggestion

Let me suggest that a guiding principle would be a version of the Hippocratic Oath, "First do no harm." We don't make IT administrators' lives miserable by advising people on how to circumvent their policies. We don't use this open forum to instruct people on how to create malware. We don't help people circumvent the terms of service with their Internet provider. If they want the ISP's service, they agree to abide by their terms. How is that really different?

I think the same logic applies to EULAs. Two other parties have agreed to terms and it's inappropriate for us to inject ourselves into the relationship and facilitate one of those parties violating their agreement.

The existing answers focus on "legal" issues and censorship. I think that is the wrong way to frame it, and not the basis on which a site scope decision should be made.

Legality

None of this comes under criminal law, so it isn't even a question of legality. If there is a legal issue, it is whether Apple's EULA is enforceable in a way that would allow Apple to collect damages. If Apple won a court ruling affirming its claims, or another party won a ruling that told Apple to go suck wind, that would provide a basis for discussing site policy.

Short of a court ruling, there is simply the EULA. Apple can specify any terms they want; it's their product. You don't own it, you only pay to use it within Apple's terms. If you don't like the terms, buy something else. If you agree to Apple's terms, your voluntary agreement is what binds you to them.

Implications for the site

Let's put aside the business issues, like do we want to expose SE to potential heavy-handed action by Apple; e.g., using deep pockets to win a judgement against SE regardless of merit.

Also put aside questions of moderation. We can follow the current policy simply for expediency; the decision is a safe one and we can defer dealing with the issue (in Washington DC, the technical term for that is "kicking the can down the road").

Most questions of scope differentiate technical factors to define what is within SU's bailiwick. Devices other than computers and their peripherals are off-topic. Software recommendations go to another site. The community is expert on those kinds of issues and it's appropriate to decide scope by consensus.

What makes Hackintosh special is the legal and ethical issues people associate with it. I suggest that those kinds of issues would be more appropriately driven by core, guiding principles. If we decide, as a matter of policy, to make Hackintosh questions officially off-topic, it should be based on core principles rather than the winds of consensus.

Suggestion

Let me suggest that a guiding principle would be a version of the Hippocratic Oath, "First do no harm." We don't make IT administrators' lives miserable by advising people on how to circumvent their policies. We don't use this open forum to instruct people on how to create malware. We don't help people circumvent the terms of service with their Internet provider. If you want the ISP's service, you agree to abide by their terms. How is that really different?

The existing answers focus on "legal" issues and censorship. I think that is the wrong way to frame it, and not the basis on which a site scope decision should be made.

Legality

None of this comes under criminal law, so it isn't even a question of legality. If there is a legal issue, it is whether Apple's EULA is enforceable in a way that would allow Apple to collect damages. If Apple won a court ruling affirming its claims, or another party won a ruling that told Apple to go suck wind, that would provide a basis for discussing site policy.

Short of a court ruling, there is simply the EULA. Apple can specify any terms they want; it's their product. You don't own it, you only pay to use it within Apple's terms. If you don't like the terms, buy something else. If you agree to Apple's terms, your voluntary agreement is what binds you to them.

Implications for the site

Let's put aside the business issues, like do we want to expose SE to potential heavy-handed action by Apple; e.g., using deep pockets to win a judgement against SE regardless of merit.

Most questions of scope differentiate technical factors to define what is within SU's bailiwick. Devices other than computers and their peripherals are off-topic. Software recommendations go to another site. The community is expert on those kinds of issues and it's appropriate to decide scope by consensus.

What makes Hackintosh special is the legal and ethical issues people associate with it. I suggest that those kinds of issues would be more appropriately driven by core, guiding principles. If we decide, as a matter of policy, to make Hackintosh questions officially off-topic, it should be based on core principles rather than the winds of consensus.

Suggestion

Let me suggest that a guiding principle would be a version of the Hippocratic Oath, "First do no harm." We don't make IT administrators' lives miserable by advising people on how to circumvent their policies. We don't use this open forum to instruct people on how to create malware. We don't help people circumvent the terms of service with their Internet provider. If you want the ISP's service, you agree to abide by their terms. How is that really different?