I voted for "Maybe, but I'd want to test it out first" primarily because I don't trust the idea of a clone being anywhere near as reliable as a genuine Apple built Mac. Id' be willing to at least give it a look though, so I voted in this category as opposed to the "No way" one.

In reading through the comments on this poll page, I think many people who are arguing that Apple would bring in more customers or sales by allowing clones are missing one really big point. OS X currently has no licensing DRM in place. Apple would have no choice but to start shipping Leopard with serial numbers, and possible even an activation scheme. The current Leopard OS is available now on various bit torrent sites, and those files would become hugely popular if clones were allowed. So, in that scenario; person buys Mac clone and downloads Leopard Install Disk.iso file from bit torrent, Apple would make exactly $0. Not very profitable for them, so where's the incentive?
Keep in mind that Steve Jobs' vision of the Mac is simplicity from the consumer perspective. In the world that many seem to want, the average Mac buyer who would purchase from Apple would suddenly have to worry about serial #s and activations DRM schemes, something that many switchers are running from on the Windows side. And this would all be done so that a minority of tinkerers could satisfy their inner Scrooge's to buy a cheapo Mac. Why would Apple choose to do this?

Of course, if they officially sanctioned clones, they could also charge the clone makers a licensing fee, which in turn would drive up the price of these cheap clones.
In either scenario though, something would need to change from the current model. I don't like the idea of OS X coming with activation or bothersome serial #s, (and I suspect Apple doesn't love it either) and if Apple chooses to charge fees to the clone producers, then the price of their offerings goes up.

Overall I just don't think it makes much sense. I know others are inclined to vehemently disagree.

Right on.