This answer from 2010 is oft-cited as reason for questions about "Hackintoshes" (fancy word for "Running macOS on non-Apple hardware") not being allowed. The reasoning is that we don't want "a reputation for encouraging something that may or may not be illegal".
That's a horrible guideline, and it isn't even applicable here. There is no law against running macOS on non-Apple hardware. Yes, you signed an agreement to download the OS. That agreement is a civil contract. Apple could, conceivably, take you to court to claim civil damages. Very different than criminal justice.
The other two answers, one outscoring the accepted answer, make decent arguments:
there is no such things as worldwide legal agreements. Apple can put into their usage agreements whatever they like, in many countries that would never hold in court. --Arjan
No country allows its corporations to single-handedly impose statutory limits on its citizens--even when the corporation is as successful and respected as Apple. It is absurd to imagine that any arbitrary EULA might enjoy the force of law.
- There is nothing illegal about asking questions that abjure a EULA--you cannot call it a "grey area" if there is no law to skirt.
- There is nothing illegal about offering ideas on how one might subvert a EULA. Speculation isn't contravention--and neither one is illegal.
So, let's have the hackintosh discussion again, almost seven years later. I'd propose that the 'ban' on such questions be lifted.
Thoughts?
