11

A Hackintosh is a bootlegged version of Apple's macOS loaded onto a computer that has not been manufactured by Apple and doesn't have a license to run macOS. According to Apple's macOS license,

I. Other Use Restrictions. The grants set forth in this License do not permit you to, and you agree not to, install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so.

However, Apple does not pursue any legal action unless the software is being commercially sold, even though Apple is very quick to shut down anything that threatens its business. Many options and techniques are available to prevent Hackintoshes from being created, but Apple does not use any of them and there are no 'hidden security settings' that will shut down Hackintoshes.

This article may explain some reasons Apple hasn't shut down, and even benefits from the Hackintosh.

Considering that Apple could have shut down the Hackintosh, but deliberately chose not to, would it be permissible to create a Hackintosh if one would not be buying a Mac for this purpose anyways?

Rafael
  • 1,373
  • 7
  • 23
  • 1
    This question, as I understand it, can be asked more generally as whether an unenforced law must be followed according to Jewish Law (AKA Dina d'malchusa dina). –  Jun 11 '18 at 22:34
  • 1
    @Ploni, The question is more to ask if the written statement must be followed when other actions show that that what is written is not really intended. – Rafael Jun 11 '18 at 22:40
  • And how is that different than a law which isn't enforced? Why would it make a difference if it's a law or a legal contract? –  Jun 11 '18 at 22:41
  • @Ploni, part of the question is if a law that is not enforced, but could be easily enforced must be followed, and secondly if that combined with the fact that there is little/no monetary loss would make it permissible. – Rafael Jun 11 '18 at 22:46
  • 2
    Is this any different than https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/31121/pirating-software? – Salmononius2 Jun 11 '18 at 23:14
  • 1
    Dupe? https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/38386/9643 –  Jun 11 '18 at 23:26
  • Note that the question points out that the law is enforced when it leads to commercial gain for the thief. The question is if the fact that Apple has decided not to waste money on stopping people that will not make a profit from the theft makes a difference. This is a case like the police not spending time and resources on crimes that are relatively trivial in order to concentrate on serious crime. When they can, they would enforce it, but not want to overdo the activity. – sabbahillel Jun 11 '18 at 23:27
  • @Salmononius2 it's different, (assuming they've paid for their copy of macOS) since it's not theft and Apple (probably) aren't losing any money (unless you're selling bootleg Apple products). They're buying an Apple product and using it in a way that Apple don't allow. My intuition is that it would depend on what country you're in as to whether or not it's allowable, since that part of the EULA may not be legally binding in all countries. – Probie Jun 11 '18 at 23:28
  • @sabbahillel, I would like to point out that Apple does not just 'enforce the law' when it leads to commercial gain for the thief, but when there is no gain (or loss) it is not enforced to save precious time and resources. It would in fact be quite easy for Apple to make this activity much harder, and the only reason it hasn't is because it deliberately chose not to. Apple has in other cases chose to where there is no commercial gain (ex. jailbreaking), and must have decided not to make it difficult to make a Hackintosh. – Rafael Jun 11 '18 at 23:52
  • 3
    The discussion about "law" doesn't really seem relevant here. There's no specific law about installing Mac OS on non-licensed hardware. The only law in question here would have to do with violating terms of software license, which is enforced in some circumstances (e.g. when other companies want to enforce their licenses). This is a question about violating a contract when one party to the contract has similar contracts with others and is known not to enforce it in certain circumstances. – Daniel Jun 12 '18 at 03:21
  • 1
    I would like to suggest this great book, From Maimonides to Microsoft on Jewish law vs. copyright infringement (since you're eventually making an illegal copy of Apple's software) – Kazi bácsi Jun 12 '18 at 09:48

1 Answers1

-2

It deffinetly isn't stealing - there is nothing physical being stolen. The only shaila I can think of would be dina dimalchusa dina, so it would depend on the legalities. From what I saw online it looks like it is deffinetly illegal, so then the shaila is what the deal is under dina dimalchusa dina. You would have to ask a posek for a definitve answer, but I do not believe a technically illegal practice that is widespread and unenforced is assur under dina dimalchusa.

Kovy Jacob
  • 565
  • 2
  • 8