[This answer from 2010](https://meta.superuser.com/a/1473/194458) 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](https://meta.superuser.com/a/5458/194458) [answers](https://meta.superuser.com/a/2405/194458), 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](https://meta.superuser.com/users/482/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.
>
> --[Appreciative User](https://meta.superuser.com/users/96356/appreciative-user)

So, let's have the hackintosh discussion again, almost seven years later. I'd propose that the 'ban' on such questions be lifted.

Thoughts?