If people could reliably and legally install it on any PC they want it could still cut into Windows' share a lot more than it currently can.
It's not hard to imagine that before long, enterprising people will release custom "distros" of it, say with an up-to-date OpenGL, or even a Wine/DirectX emulation layer baked in so we can just double-click on any .exe and have it run natively.
* As I'm assuming/hoping it's going to be called starting June 13. They could open source "OS X" while keeping the "macOS" brandname for themselves.
> If people could reliably and legally install it on any PC they want it could still cut into Windows' share a lot more than it currently can.
But Apple would lose a huge amount of money on hardware sales, which is where they make their money. Apple even tried an approved clones program in the 90s, it was a miserable failure and one of the first things Jobs did on his return was kill it.
> It's not hard to imagine that before long, enterprising people will release custom "distros" of it
Which Apple really wouldn't want. One of the selling points of OS X is the lack of variation in both software and hardware.
The Darwin kernel is already open-source, released mostly under the Apple Public Source license. It's the kernel for OS X and iOS.
Granted, there's not much userland...
