iPhone SDK is under NDA (was Re: iPhone SDK)

  • On 29 Mar 2008, at 22:32, Andreas Höschler wrote:

    > Just afte rinstalling the iPhone sdk downloaded a few days ago I
    > realized that there is even a newer SDK with some enhencements. I
    > downloaded and installed that.

    The iPhone SDK is under NDA.  When you downloaded and installed it,
    you promised to abide by a license agreement that says that you can't
    talk about it.

    It *is* public knowledge that the iPhone SDK requires an Intel-based
    Mac.  It is also public knowledge that there is a second version of
    the SDK.  But beyond that, unless the information in question is
    public knowledge (which is defined in the license agreement), you
    can't discuss it with anyone except Apple employees.

    It seems especially foolish to break this promise in this particular
    instance, as Apple is going to act as a gatekeeper for the App Store,
    and---depending on the seriousness of your license breach---it could
    very well turn around and ask you why Apple should trust you given
    that you broke your agreement last time around.  I'm not saying it's
    likely to happen in this case (or indeed in *any* case), but I do
    think a number of people are being far too careless about the NDA
    (perhaps because they downloaded the SDK for free and didn't read the
    license agreement they were signing up to?)

    Kind regards,

    Alastair.

    --
    http://alastairs-place.net
  • On 31 Mar 2008, at 16:10, Alastair Houghton wrote:
    > On 29 Mar 2008, at 22:32, Andreas Höschler wrote:
    >
    >> Just afte rinstalling the iPhone sdk downloaded a few days ago I
    >> realized that there is even a newer SDK with some enhencements. I
    >> downloaded and installed that.
    >
    > The iPhone SDK is under NDA.  When you downloaded and installed it,
    > you promised to abide by a license agreement that says that you
    > can't talk about it.
    >
    > It *is* public knowledge that the iPhone SDK requires an Intel-based
    > Mac.

    Personally I think that any information that has been distributed to
    100,000+ people with no real screening process could also be termed
    public knowledge.

    Sure Apple don't see it like that, but I don't really understand the
    decision to put it under a click through NDA, and I'm not sure any
    legal professional would expect it to hold up.

    (Sorry. Apple Developer Information and the NDAs is a pet peeve,
    especially as they don't provide any forums for discussion)_______________________________________________
    MacOSX-dev mailing list
    <MacOSX-dev...>
    http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-dev
  • >
    > On 29 Mar 2008, at 22:32, Andreas Höschler wrote:
    >
    >> Just afte rinstalling the iPhone sdk downloaded a few days ago I
    >> realized that there is even a newer SDK with some enhencements. I
    >> downloaded and installed that.
    >
    > The iPhone SDK is under NDA.  When you downloaded and installed it,
    > you promised to abide by a license agreement that says that you
    > can't talk about it.
    >
    > It *is* public knowledge that the iPhone SDK requires an Intel-
    > based Mac.  It is also public knowledge that there is a second
    > version of the SDK.  But beyond that, unless the information in
    > question is public knowledge (which is defined in the license
    > agreement), you can't discuss it with anyone except Apple employees.
    >
    > It seems especially foolish to break this promise in this
    > particular instance, as Apple is going to act as a gatekeeper for
    > the App Store, and---depending on the seriousness of your license
    > breach---it could very well turn around and ask you why Apple
    > should trust you given that you broke your agreement last time
    > around.  I'm not saying it's likely to happen in this case (or
    > indeed in *any* case), but I do think a number of people are being
    > far too careless about the NDA (perhaps because they downloaded the
    > SDK for free and didn't read the license agreement they were
    > signing up to?)
    >
    > Kind regards,
    >
    > Alastair.
    >
    > --
    > http://alastairs-place.net
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > From: Paul Sargent <psarge...>
    > Date: March 31, 2008 11:01:11 AM CDT
    > To: MacOSX-Dev List <macosx-dev...>
    > Subject: Re: iPhone SDK is under NDA (was Re: iPhone SDK)
    >
    >
    >
    > On 31 Mar 2008, at 16:10, Alastair Houghton wrote:
    >> On 29 Mar 2008, at 22:32, Andreas Höschler wrote:
    >>
    >>> Just afte rinstalling the iPhone sdk downloaded a few days ago I
    >>> realized that there is even a newer SDK with some enhencements. I
    >>> downloaded and installed that.
    >>
    >> The iPhone SDK is under NDA.  When you downloaded and installed
    >> it, you promised to abide by a license agreement that says that
    >> you can't talk about it.
    >>
    >> It *is* public knowledge that the iPhone SDK requires an Intel-
    >> based Mac.
    >
    > Personally I think that any information that has been distributed
    > to 100,000+ people with no real screening process could also be
    > termed public knowledge.
    >
    > Sure Apple don't see it like that, but I don't really understand
    > the decision to put it under a click through NDA, and I'm not sure
    > any legal professional would expect it to hold up.
    >
    > (Sorry. Apple Developer Information and the NDAs is a pet peeve,
    > especially as they don't provide any forums for discussion)
    >
    >
    I'm sure you would not feel the same way if the license agreement for
    your own software was violated...
    When you agree to the license agreement, the keyword is agree...
    By violating the terms you may well ruin it for yourself and others
    in the future.
    Aside from that, you may well find trouble with Apple's legal
    department._______________________________________________
    MacOSX-dev mailing list
    <MacOSX-dev...>
    http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-dev
  • On 31 Mar 2008, at 21:36, John Joyce wrote:
    >>
    >> From: Paul Sargent <psarge...>

    >> Personally I think that any information that has been distributed
    >> to 100,000+ people with no real screening process could also be
    >> termed public knowledge.
    >>
    > I'm sure you would not feel the same way if the license agreement
    > for your own software was violated...

    Actually I'm not too bothered, but that's just me. I was never going
    to have those people as customers anyway, and maybe, just maybe,
    they'll show my software to someone else.

    Completely different situation though. I'm not a billion dollar
    corporation (if only I was).

    > When you agree to the license agreement, the keyword is agree...
    > By violating the terms you may well ruin it for yourself and others
    > in the future.
    > Aside from that, you may well find trouble with Apple's legal
    > department.

    Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying people shouldn't abide by the
    NDA. I just find the concept of having one nonsensical and
    frustrating, especially as the main effect it has is to stop the
    developers talking to each other, and I personally can't see why you'd
    want to do that.(1)

    In the end, it's there, we "agreed" to it, so we have to live with it.
    It just rubs me the wrong way when I see people needing to be
    policed(2) for asking innocent questions.

    Paul (All opinions my own, blah, blah, blah)

    (1) Actually, I think I do know the reason, and that is to put an
    embargo on the press printing any stories based on information in the
    unfinished SDK. I just really hope it's lifted for the non-beta SDK.

    (2) ..which under the circumstances has to be done.
  • > Actually I'm not too bothered, but that's just me. I was never going
    > to have those people as customers anyway, and maybe, just maybe,
    > they'll show my software to someone else.
    ...
    > Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying people shouldn't abide by the
    > NDA. I just find the concept of having one nonsensical and
    > frustrating, especially as the main effect it has is to stop the
    > developers talking to each other, and I personally can't see why you'd
    > want to do that.(1)
    ...
    > Paul (All opinions my own, blah, blah, blah)

    Well, Paul, you may not want Apple to be your customer, but you're their customer, and since that's the case, you should just get over it and check all the info you got with the iPhone SDK to see if there was a particular contact at Apple you should e-mail your questions.  If such a contact isn't available to you, you should then e-mail <dts...>.  If anyone would be authorized to answer your questions and/or talk about the iPhone SDK, that department will put you in touch with them.

    Or, you could stay upset and risk having Steve Jobs call your parents.
  • Am 31.03.2008 um 17:10 Uhr schrieb Alastair Houghton:

    > It seems especially foolish to break this promise in this particular
    > instance, as Apple is going to act as a gatekeeper for the App
    > Store, and---depending on the seriousness of your license breach---
    > it could very well turn around and ask you why Apple should trust
    > you given that you broke your agreement last time around.

    Good point. Yet another reason why I think that funneling each and
    every application through Apple's store is a bad idea.

    They are going to deny iPhone users certain applications just because
    the don't like that developer's nose.

    Well, nothing I can do about it, really. Besides not buying an iPhone
    myself and recommending to friends not to buy one either.

    Andreas
  • On 1 Apr 2008, at 01:06, Andreas Mayer wrote:
    > Am 31.03.2008 um 17:10 Uhr schrieb Alastair Houghton:
    >
    >> It seems especially foolish to break this promise in this
    >> particular instance, as Apple is going to act as a gatekeeper for
    >> the App Store, and---depending on the seriousness of your license
    >> breach---it could very well turn around and ask you why Apple
    >> should trust you given that you broke your agreement last time
    >> around.
    >
    > Good point. Yet another reason why I think that funneling each and
    > every application through Apple's store is a bad idea.
    > They are going to deny iPhone users certain applications just
    > because the don't like that developer's nose.

    Well, if they're going to break a promise they made to Apple, they'll
    feel more loyalty to their paying customers? I think not.

    End of the day, if you're a liar, then you get your just desserts.
    Doesn't happen enough to be honest.

    > Well, nothing I can do about it, really. Besides not buying an
    > iPhone myself and recommending to friends not to buy one either.

    That's just petty and stupid.

    M
  • Am 01.04.2008 um 02:28 Uhr schrieb Matt Johnston:

    > Well, if they're going to break a promise they made to Apple,

    I'm not talking about this specific case (nothing really happened,
    anyway).

    > That's just petty and stupid.

    *shrugs* I disagree.

    Andreas
  • On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:28 PM, Matt Johnston wrote:
    >
    > On 1 Apr 2008, at 01:06, Andreas Mayer wrote:
    > End of the day, if you're a liar, then you get your just desserts.
    > Doesn't happen enough to be honest.

    "Just deserts."  Not yummy.
  • Am 01.04.2008 um 02:06 schrieb Andreas Mayer:
    > Well, nothing I can do about it, really. Besides not buying an
    > iPhone myself and recommending to friends not to buy one either.

    Supporting open platforms would have a bigger impact. Write your
    applications using open source frameworks. There's nothing stopping
    you from creating equally nice software for other phones/PDAs.

    Markus

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter
    http://www.jump-ing.de/
  • Am 01.04.2008 um 11:04 Uhr schrieb Markus Hitter:

    > There's nothing stopping you from creating equally nice software for
    > other phones/PDAs.

    Yes there is. Lack of a decent a) OS  b) language c) SDK d) hardware.

    Oh, well. I had to wait nearly 10 years before someone *finally* put a
    PDA and a mobile phone together as it should be. I guess it won't hurt
    to wait some more ...

    Andreas
  • Am 02.04.2008 um 03:21 schrieb Andreas Mayer:
    >
    > Am 01.04.2008 um 11:04 Uhr schrieb Markus Hitter:
    >
    >> There's nothing stopping you from creating equally nice software
    >> for other phones/PDAs.
    >
    > Yes there is. Lack of a decent a) OS  b) language c) SDK d) hardware.

    This stuff exists for quite some time now, here are two starting points:

    http://www.quantum-step.com/wiki.php?page=About

    http://www.etoile-project.org/etoile/mediawiki/index.php?title=PDA

    Probably you knew it already ;-)

    Markus

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter
    http://www.jump-ing.de/
previous month march 2008 next month
MTWTFSS
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            
Go to today