I worked at a place that tested software releases on a VM of every supported operating system, including OS X. We didn't have any Apple hardware, because no one wanted to deal with that, but someone had brought in the chassis of an old Apple computer and the host computer was inside it. We didn't run it by any lawyers or anything, but as far as we could tell, running OS X inside a computer that had all of its guts replaced was entirely within the license requirements.

▲

rendaw 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

IANAL but I think you'd be fine as long as you placed your NUC on a Mac Mini or maybe a closed Macbook if your hardware has a larger footprint.

> use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time.

Note that you do have to be careful not to stack multiple Macbooks when you do this.

▲

bryogenic 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Mac of Theseus

	▲	dlcarrier 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Except int this case, we pulled a single plank off of ship of the ship, burned the rest of it, and nailed the plank to a brand new ship built in a competing ship yard.

▲

pbhjpbhj 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

These sort of letter-of-the-law arguments don't tend to do well in court in my very limited experience (UK). But I love the essence of it!

	▲	dlcarrier 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The UK has been slowly codifying laws over time, transitioning from common law to written law. In the Americas, we kind of jump started that processes, and are far more focused on the law as written, to the point that the positioning of a comma can have million-dollar implications: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/business/worldbusiness/25... If a literal interpretation of what you wrote allows for something, even though it's clear that you hadn't intended to do so, then it is going to be allowed.

▲

teaearlgraycold 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I would love to hear more about the exact license wording that allows this.

▲

userbinator 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It's been a while since I've looked at it, but I believe it says something along the lines of "Apple-branded systems". Putting an Apple logo sticker on a Hackintosh was a common thing to do for this reason.

▲

GuB-42 4 hours ago | parent [-]

A PC with an Apple sticker on it is not an Apple-branded system, it is a PC with an Apple sticker on it. If you actually were to consider it an Apple-branded system, then it would be a trademark violation, which feels worse to me.

	▲	kbutler an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I doubt anyone thought the sticker made it actually legal. More along the lines of "65 miles an hour? I was only out for 30 minutes..."