As has been mentioned, it's technically illegal per violation of the EULA. But there is no court in the land that is going to lock you up in jail. The worst that could happen would be a heavy fine and if they go after you then they'd also have to go after everyone else who's ever installed or used Sheepshaver, PearPC or built or bought a Hackintosh.
Unless you are so over the top and Apple is seriously losing money because of you, there's nothing that's going to happen.
No, 'tisn't.
It is against the EULA to run OSX on
non-Apple-labelled computers, but the EULA itself makes a disambiguation between
Apple-labelled computers, and
Apple-labelled hardware. The former applies to OSX, and the latter applies to the Apple firmware.
Running OSX on a G5 with any other hardware inside is not an
explicit violation of the EULA. In fact, the EULA does not say 'Systems Labeled by Apple', it states 'Apple-labeled Computers', which is so ambiguous as to also apply to any system labelled by anyone as 'Apple', or displaying an Apple label.
This. Technically they could take you to court but there are little to no damages to be sought/awarded, so it wouldn't be worth their time what so ever. I had a "hackintosh" several years ago made from an Asus eeePC, not once was I worried about Apple seeking legal action.
This is more of a throwback to the clone days, when Apple allowed other hardware manufacturers to make and install the Mac OS on their own hardware for resale. When Apple dropped this idea I'm pretty sure the EULA started to change, reflecting what it is today.
Basically the wording is there to prevent companies, such as
Psystar, from making hardware with the intention of selling it as OS X capable or with OS X already installed.
That IS a good catch in the EULA though, since you're considering running the software on updated internals inside an Apple housing. Then again, they could always refer back to the small Apple stamp/sticker on most of their logic boards/components.
It isn't a throwback, as the licenses with AMAX systems didn't use the term 'Apple-lableled'. (They had some other wording, such as 'Apple authorised'.) I believe this is in place, to allow
a caveat for Apple to use mainboards in their systems,
that they did not directly design, or manufacture.
That does not preclude using it to your own advantage, and it would be interesting to see Apple try to defend this in most courts, as they have specifically declared Apple-labelled hardware elsewhere, demonstrating that the computer, and the hardware labels are separate terms in their contract.
If you remember, all Apple hardware used to be manufactured, by Apple, in Cupertino. That is no longer true. it is now 'designed by Apple in Cupertino', and manufactured by a third-party in China, and then branded by Apple. If the agreement said '
hardware manufactured by Apple',
then it would not permit you to use OSX on systems made after around 2002. How is that for irony?
I would support, and many courts would uphold, that as you are upgrading an Apple system, that you are still entitled to run OSX on it, as Apple computers do not come with an EULA of their own, that forbids hardware modifications.
