There's a lot of talk about EULAs. Personally, I don't pay them any mind and I would encourage others to do the same. At work is a different story but at home I do what I want.
I'd like to see Apple try and stop me. What are they going to do? Sue me for using their OS on non-Apple hardware? Refuse to sell to me? Come into my house and physically take the media? Nope. They're not going to do anything.
I'm a consumer. I buy Macs and PCs. I use whatever I want and I do whatever I want. If anyone has a problem with it, tough, don't make it then.
I don't agree with the general thrust of this comment, although I do certainly acknowledge that Apple is probably most unlikely to pursue individuals and that, in reality, anyone who is particularly keen to run OS X on a non-Apple machine is likely to do so.
I just happen to have the rather old fashioned view that, having freely chosen to purchase a software licence, in full knowledge of the conditions attached to it, it is both dishonest and dishonourable to ignore them.
My view is reinforced by my opinion that the integrated (hardware and software) solution provided by Apple is significantly advantageous. Perhaps more importantly, in the overall context of the computer market, I do not believe that Apple's business model is at all disreputable. Clearly others don't share that belief but that's for them to argue.
More generally, having read through this rapidly lengthening thread, it is at once clear that there are a number of opposing and apparently irreconcilable opinions relating to the legality or otherwise of the OS X EULA.
Some contributors appear to speak with convincing authority, whilst others simply rant in a fashion that barely generates confidence in their views. Unfortunately, the distribution of apparently authoritative information is uneven - it doesn't express a coherent opinion - which exposes the danger in assuming that those who speak with authority are actually relevantly knowledgeable.
I suspect that issues around regulation and the law are particularly prone to the risk that personal opinion and prejudice masquerades as fact. And yet, it is in this area that an appropriate degree of expertise, coupled with precision of language, is most important.
Unlike most of the more outspoken contributors to this thread, I am prepared to admit that I have insufficient knowledge of the law to be at all certain that my personal views have any real validity. However, with that significant caveat, I would argue the following general points.
As others have stated, we purchase a copy of the operating system, the use of which is subject to licence conditions that we implicitly accept either at the point of purchase or otherwise at the point of reading the EULA and agreeing its content. (If the EULA wording is not available on the packaging, we are entitled to read it after opening and, at that point, to determine that it is unacceptable and to return the package for refund.)
If we use the software, it is implicit that we have read and agreed the licence conditions. The licence effectively forms part of a contract.
Apple markets an integrated product consisting of both hardware and software. An important element of competitive advantage lies in the coherence of this approach.
Apple has a legitimate interest in protecting its intellectual property. Buyers are (or should be) aware of the terms of the EULA.
Apple does not have a monopoly position in the overall personal computer market.
Other contributors may choose to denounce my views as nonsense. And perhaps they are, but they're certainly in some good company!
