But is it Legal?
The internet is awash with information about Hackintosh building, and I haven't seen any signs of this attracting any cease and desist orders from Cupertino. That's no argument in law, of course, and I'm not a lawyer. But I do know that all the bits of the operating system - EFI, kernel, kexts - that you'll be messing with, or have been messed with for you, aren't part of Apple's proprietary intellectual property. The core of Mac OS X is an open source Unix variant based on BSD Unix.
The final build: would adding one of Apple's logo stickers make it entirely legit?
However, as you'll have read in the Snow Leopard End User Licence Agreement - and of course we all always read these EULAs - "You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer..."
You're on your own with this. I'm in some doubt myself about the legal standing of "non-Apple branded" in this context. The Snow Leopard distribution disk you bought in the Apple store conveniently provides you with a pair of white apple-shaped stickers, presumably to attach in some way to your computer. Does your Hackintosh with such a sticker attached become "Apple-branded"?
I think the decision is up to you. ®
"You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer..."
One could "agree" to anything in an EULA - like "agreeing" to only install Apple Software while performing un-anaesthetised self-circumcision, and it thankfully it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the legal status of the software. If an EULA were to have the legal status of a contract, it would for one thing have to comply with contract law and that means, among other things, that you can't just throw in arbitrary conditions to the detriment of one party.
There's a reason why these things never really get tested in court - when they got slapped down as is only right and proper, companies wouldn't be able to continue the pretence that they actually are contracts.
I suspect anyway, that non-commercial hackintoshing provides a net benefit to Apple through people upgrading to real machines, so it's win-win situation as-is.
Convinced this is perfectly legal
I'm not legally qualified, but am convinced this is perfectly lawful. You have bought a piece of software. Whatever anyone says, the transaction is a sale just as much as the purchase of a book or chisel or CD is a sale. The seller wants to restrict what you do with it after you have bought it. I don't believe any UK court is going to uphold this.
In the first place its going to fall foul of consumer protection legislation which restricts what conditions you can impose in cases where the balance of power between consumer and supplier is heavily in favour of the company - which in this case it is.
Second, you have not consented to the restrictions, nor had them made clear to you, before purchase of the product.
Third, post-sale restrictions on use which do not originate from public interest concerns are not generally enforceable. If its a matter of forbidding any but the supplier to refill a certain kind of fuel tank, and there is a genuine health and safety issue, it will probably be enforceable. If its just XYZ saying you shall not play this CD on players made by ABC, no way.
Basically, they have sold you a copy. What you do with it is up to you. They have not sold you 'the software' any more than a bookseller has sold you 'the book'. What they have sold you is one copy. If you want to read this copy in the bath, that's up to you.
This article is full of win
What's happened to El Reg?
It's like you guys have just improved like a quantum leap just this past week or so with great stuff (Lester's Sci Fi thing, the < 100 quid ebay thing, this... oh wait, we need more playmobil though)
Keep it up!