Apple Claims That Jail-Breaking Is Illegal 610
rmav writes "Apple has finally made a statement about jail-breaking. They try to sell the idea that it is a copyright infringement and DMCA violation. This, despite the fact (as the linked article states) that courts have ruled that copying software while reverse engineering is a fair use when done for purposes of fostering interoperability with independently created software. I cannot help but think that the recent flood of iPhone cracked applications is responsible for this. Before that, Apple was quietly ignoring the jailbreak scene. Now, I suppose that in the future we may only install extra applications on our iPhones as ad hoc installs using the SDK, and if we want turn-by-turn directions, tethering, and the like, we have to compile these apps by ourselves? Maybe we should go and download the cydia source code and see what we can do with it."
Someone call the wambulance (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has a problem with this...... (Score:5, Insightful)
..... Because they could potentially make no money off the apps that are installed via jailbreaking. The rest of their reasons are just a smokescreen. Plain and simple.
Apple Lock-in... (Score:4, Insightful)
When marketing and Reality Distortion (tm) fails, call in the jackbooted thugs and sue the dissidents into submission.
This, more than anything, is why Apple will never get one coin from my wallet.
And so it begins (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is the new Microsoft.
Remember kids... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because something right doesn't mean it is legal.
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
-1, Bad Summary (Score:1, Insightful)
OP's editorializing is just stupid. Apple didn't make this statement because of "...the recent flood of iPhone cracked applications..." They're responding to the claims filed with the Copyright Office.
I really don't understand why anyone would expect Apple to behave differently in response to the EFF's proposal for DMCA exemption.
Re:And so it begins (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft is on top and we are not about to root for them. Oh, and they do actually try to make a quality product, but is that an inherent feature of Apple computer, or simply a result of being #2? (heh heh) Apple has style, which suckers a lot of people in. One could rant back and forth all day about their quality or lack thereof, but I will only say that Apple has a long history of burying information inconvenient to them, and of abusing and disregarding their customers. This does not differentiate them from Microsoft in any way, but I believe that is your point -- and it is certainly mine. Actually, I have personally found Microsoft to be more up front about security and other product flaws than Apple. Then again, there are so many of them...
Playing devil's advocate here... (Score:5, Insightful)
So Apple is doing this to protect its income for apps on the iPhone store. That also means it is protecting the income of application *developers* who sell through the iPhone store. Sure, they could try to sell apps only for jailbroken phones, but with all the gray areas around it legally (at least in the public's eye) and with the immense ease of use of the iPhone store (click and download right now!), they would much rather go Apple's route. Right? So Apple could be covering its ass, making sure they don't get attacked from iPhone developers who have trekked through the process to make "legit" apps but could be someday losing out to jailbroken competitors.
Or else it's just about the money.
Re:Apple has a problem with this...... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can no longer innovate, then it's time to litigate.
Re:And so it begins (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember kids... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
Also, don't get caught.
Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another company taking the high road of suing their customers for profit!
Re:Apple Lock-in... (Score:1, Insightful)
Your loss.
Be consistent too, and remove from your disks all open-source projects where Apple has done work.
Re:This is like bitching and moaning that... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's like bitching that Toyota will sue you if you put one in. Sure, they can rule there warranty null and void, but that's all they can do.
How many things do you sue that don't have transparency? I would bet a lot.
Re:Playing devil's advocate here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple has a problem with this...... (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't the developer "license" something like $100? Plus, even with a $.99 app at 70%, Apple is still making ~$.30 for providing very little disk space and bandwidth to download it. It all adds up.
Re:Apple Lock-in... (Score:5, Insightful)
He refuses to reward the company by purchasing their products because of their business tactics.
Why does that preclude him from using code that Apple has given away?
Re:Means nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
And if Apple Corp. was suing you with some strange interpretation of the DMCA today and the legal dream team it must be able to afford...
What you be confident that the judge would sort it all out?
An Honest Question (Score:5, Insightful)
How is jailbreaking an iPhone different from removing DRM from a game?
Am I wrong that Jailbreaking an iPhone simply allows you to use more applications on it?
Is this not "Fair Use?"
Is it true that there are free, non-stolen programs that wouldn't normally run on an iPhone without it being Jailbroken?
Or is Jailbreaking simply a means to running pirated iPhone apps?
Re:This is like bitching and moaning that... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's like Toyota suing you if you tried to make your own NOx kit for your own use.
If monkeying around voids the warranty, fine. If monkeying around is outlawed...then only outlaws will have monkeys...er. um. wait.
Re:This is like bitching and moaning that... (Score:4, Insightful)
The normal demographic buys the iPhone, signs the AT&T contract, and shops at iTunes and the App Store, all as Steve Jobs intended when he created the world.* Only true geeks buy iPhones to crack them, and we know that Apple doesn't care that much about the true geek community. In other words, wrong answer on the motive, although the advice to not buy an iPhone if it isn't what you want is spot on (yeah, it's only common sense, but that's getting darn rare nowadays).
Disclaimer: I have an iPhone, an iPod, and a Macintosh (it sits near one of the Ubuntu computers and gets used now and then). I do, however, generate my own reality distortion field, and don't use Jobs'.
*Yeah, I know Steve didn't really do it, and God only thinks he's Steve Jobs.
Re:Apple has a problem with this...... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just silly. When a giant corporation like Apple makes a decision, the underlying motive is profit. Always. Hell, even when they do stuff like donate money to charity, they do it because they expect the good will they'll get from doing it to be worth more than they're donating. That's just how big companies operate.
I don't know why they're doing this, but I'm 100% certain they're doing it because they think it'll help them make more money.
Apple's reality-distortion field (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a simple-minded person. So correct me if I am misunderstanding this situation:
Apple makes a little plastic box with an LCD screen, a battery, and a circuit board and sells it to people in retail stores. And they claim that there is some kind of law that prohibits anyone who buys this little plastic box from opening it, determining how it works, and telling other people how to make it work better. Unless, of course, they pay Apple more money beyond the money that was paid for the little plastic box at the retail store.
If this is a correct interpretation of the situation, then I have to agree that this company is delusional and that they will have a difficult time adjusting to 21st-century reality. These marketing major fantasies may have had some credibility in the 20th-century, but they are meaningless as the economy collapses.
Reality is reality. If you are exploring the circuitry and firmware of a little plastic box and someone comes up to you and tells you that you are engaged in illegal activity by doing so, politely simply to ask them to go away and something constructive with their short time on Earth. If they persist or attempt to physically prevent you from your examinations of your property (your little plastic box and circuit board), then just shoot them. Don't even give it a second thought. There are far too many people in the world, and the fewer delusional assholes running around making trouble for the rest of us, the better. They won't be missed. When even Republicans are talking about economic collapse, then you know that It's a new world out there. Anything that you can do to make the world a better place for reality-based people to live in (such as sharing iPhone knowledge and applications), to more welcome you are in the new world of the post-20th century fantasies.
Is this a surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is about one thing: control.
Re:Playing devil's advocate here... (Score:4, Insightful)
However they are doing that at the expense of developers who don't sell or don't want to sell through the iPhone store, and at the expense of iPhone owners who are deprived of using the apps they want.
Are you kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has never been as litigious as Apple. Apple may make vastly overwhelmingly superior products to MS, but they have also always been more evil.
The only way Apple can become the new Microsoft, is if they stop suing people so much, and also make their stuff crash a lot more often. As things are right now, there's just no comparison. The two companies' suckiness are totally different.
Apple the new Mickeysoft? Hardly (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple has always been more proprietary than Mickeysoft! Before OSS gained a real showing outside of academia Mickeysoft was the open, free choice over Apple because at least you could choose the hardware.
And yet... so many Mickeysoft hating OSS fans (me) also love Apple (not me). Not even PocketPC locks it's users into the one Mickeysoft marketplace. Leave it to Apple to come up with that.
Honestly, if you bought an iPhone, turn in your geek card immediately and seek rehabilitation! Myself, I'll hold onto my PocketPC until a REAL Linux phone is released. Something with X, GTK and Qt where I can actually port my Desktop apps over with no more than a UI shuffle to handle the small screen. Not a new (read no existing software base)Java API with a Linux kernel hiding under 10 layers of cruft as though someone was embarrassed of it(that means you GPhone)
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has long been far WORSE than MS. The difference, of course, is that your life is extremely unlikely to be impacted by avoiding Apple's products.
Re:Apple Lock-in... (Score:1, Insightful)
Because it looks hypocritical to accept free stuff from the company while boycotting products.
I guess he'll have to stop watching television too. He might see shows partially financed by Apple commercials.
Re:Apple Lock-in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it looks hypocritical to accept free stuff from the company while boycotting products.
Only if you frame it that way. You can accept their freedom-friendly offerings while rejecting the anti-freedom products without a logical disconnect.
Re:Apple's reality-distortion field (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that's a very correct interpretation, because what it comes down to is the fact that that software itself, those 1s and 0s, are still physically represented.
Personally, I think anything that can be copied really shouldn't be copyrightable, not necessarily because I like to pirate because you should be able to physically manipulate anything you buy in any way you see fit unless you give up that right through contract.
I think we really need to start re-envisioning things for the modern world. A computer program isn't like a chair, an mp3 isn't like a television, and so on. I think part of the problem is that traditionally, people have built careers on what now can be represented in binary terms and easily transferred to other people, and hence people think they have a right to treating those 1s and 0s like they were chairs or televisions (scarce resources). Music won't end, and computer programs won't stop being written, people just need to adapt to the information age.
Failure to do so will probably result in some kludge of laws that limit our freedom in ridiculous ways.
Re:Apple Lock-in... (Score:4, Insightful)
So what is this apple code that you speak of?
Be sure to name something that wasn't first created by someone else and then taken over by Apple later.
Re:Apple's reality-distortion field (Score:1, Insightful)
You're not purchasing the software. Almost nobody purchases software.
What you are purchasing is a license to use that software.
Since the software contains controls, Apple could argue those controls are being circumvented (which is illegal under DMCA) for gaining access to protected works for infringing purposes.
I'm not going to say I agree or disagree, but I can see Apple's point of view here.
Here's an idea (Score:1, Insightful)
Why not just skip the Ipod altogether and instead use your bucks to vote for a company that isn't such a dick.
Re:Apple Lock-in... (Score:5, Insightful)
It may look hypocritical to you, but it isn't. It is also not our fault apple contributed a couple of FLOSS projects, every major company has done that, and I don't really think it should make them immune to criticism or boycott that's just ridiculous.
That's an oversimplification.. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just how big companies operate.
That's actually not true at all. Corporations are collections of people, and within them are coalitions and constituencies just like any other institution. Quite often, you'll have someone that wants a corporation to do something simply because they think it is cool and they really don't care about the profitability or business climate of it. They must justify some action in that regard, to cover their rears, but their mental game has already made the leap that they want to do something with the corporation just because they think it is cool.
So, when a company builds a school somewhere, sponsors a race, hires a speaker who climbed mt everest, invests in some wild technology, or any of the other things that corporations do, they do it because they think it is cool, and then they cover their rears to the shareholders and directors by inventing some elliptical story about profitability.
In fact, to many of the world's top business leaders, the whole point of the corporation is to exist to provide some social order and some revenue so that it can fund the private ambitions of its leaders. I mean, come on, do you really think if IBM funds something like a big art exhibit, they really sincerely think that doing so will yield a return? No, they do it because the board of IBM likes art, and that's that.
It's good to be a CEO.
Re:Apple's reality-distortion field (Score:5, Insightful)
And see that's where it gets a bit hazy, and questionable legally.
I purchased a device that had software on it - or I could have purchased a CD, or even a file. That is, and always has, been purchasing a copy of the object. And THAT is what copyright law allows. It doesn't allow producers to sell "rights to use" something - it allows them the legal right to copy it, and then distribute it as they want (which usually means selling it). Beyond that though they lose control of how you use it. YOU certainly can't copy it again except where copyright law allows via fair use, but you already own that copy and can do with it as you please, without any regard to the original copyright holder because again, that copy has been sold.
Again, copyright law was created primarily when books were what was talked about, and hence they make a perfect analogy. IT DOESN'T MATTER that after the publisher sees that people are ignoring their first page directive not now doodle the book. If they now decide to claim that "You're not really purchasing the book anymore. You're purchasing a license to use it and the pages are just a delivery method.", then they still have just as little (ie, none) capability of saying that you can't doodle in your book. Because when applied sensibly, the "only a license, not a copy" argument is complete and utter bullshit.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple's reality-distortion field (Score:3, Insightful)
"Distributing an unauthorized derivative work may well represent a breach of copyright law."
To me this sounds like "Don't take our software and change it, then give/sell it to others" which is not at all what homebrew development is about. As long as the jailbreak method doesn't distribute a cracked version of the firmware(software?) that the iPhone runs on, and only modifies the current installation, I see no reason that it would violate this clause. My 2cents.
Re:And so it begins (Score:2, Insightful)
Attila the Hun loved his horse, and Hitler was a vegetarian! Also, Bill Gates is fighting malaria.
(Godwin-flirtation aside, Gates has done far more good for the world, albeit not the computing world, than Jobs or the rest of Apple have.)
Re:Think Different, Think Hypocritical (Score:2, Insightful)
So why can't we imagine a world where every computer can run software written by anyone? Is that not also clearly the best alternative for consumers? If not, why not?
Because, as an iPhone developer, I am acutely aware that 99% of the people jailbreaking phones do so in order to steal software. And no, letting consumers freely steal whatever they want is not the best alternative for anyone in the long run... because eventually nobody will be developing software anymore, and the very consumers doing the stealing will lose out in the long run.
Part of the reason the iPhone market is so thriving and healthy compared to the PC / Mac market is that it's so much harder to steal software there. I have little interest in porting my app to the desktop, because everybody would just pirate the thing.
Re:As someone who's developed apps for the iPhone. (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people program for a living. Controversial I know.
Re:Someone call the wambulance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Apple's reality-distortion field (Score:3, Insightful)
...it allows them the legal right to copy it, and then distribute it as they want (which usually means selling it)
Emphasis mine.
Software distribution is different than physical distribution of books. I'm not saying I approve of the current status quo, but until it gets changed, they distribute "Software Licenses" not "Software", and part of the License is a non-negotiable agreement as to what you can and cannot do with the software.
Ultimately, if you find their license to be too restrictive, they you need to decide if the restrictions outweigh your desire to have the device. If so, then purchase a different phone with different restrictions. If enough people agree with you, Apple will either not sell enough iPhones, or have to change their licensing so as to allow the functionality you desire. It doesn't mean you are allowed to accept the agreement and then ignore it, legally speaking. You can in actuality as long as you don't get caught.
Just because you want and iPhone with no restrictions, doesn't mean that they have to sell you one. I want to have sex with various, unnamed celebrity starlets, but that doesn't mean that they have to let me.
Re:New Apple ad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone call the wambulance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone call the wambulance (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright can't trump OWNERSHIP (Score:4, Insightful)
I buy an iphone. I own it. How can Apple tell me what to do with it after I hand over my cash and have receipt in hand?
Re:Apple's reality-distortion field (Score:5, Insightful)
Business classes or Law classes would help you understand that sales neither walk nor quack and will go a long way to clarifying how businesses interact. Like it or not, they are selling licenses and it is perfectly legal. The only times it really has gotten beaten up is when they try to add illegal crap to the license (such as removing First Sale) and trying to prevent me from selling my license to someone else when I don't need it. (See AutoCad)
Re:Someone call the wambulance (Score:0, Insightful)
True story: just a few minutes before I posted this I was reading an anonymous post on Slashdot.
When I cast my eyes over the post this stupid prat was trolling as obnoxiously as possible and he was posting to a public forum while I was trying to read. Everyone keeps asking trolls to STFU but they just keep coming up with this crap with their insecurity emblazoned all over their posts. Nobody seems to be able to make them understand that they look like fools so they just mod them down instead.
Nothing's worse than a "base insult" troll. Whoever their insult is targeted at, it's never at all clever. In many ways they're like proper trolls, only much more boring and pitiful.
Re:Apple's reality-distortion field (Score:2, Insightful)
The DMCA states that you are not allowed to circumvent a mechanism that protects a copyrighted work even if circumvention is your only means of exercising numerous rights granted by law. Basically, it is in direct conflict with far older and established laws, and so you end up in court trying to resolve this contradiction, with one side having little money to pay for a lawyer while the other finances political campaigns to see their favorite laws enacted.
Re:That's an oversimplification.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple is a publicly traded company. They have an obligation to their shareholders. They are bound to a legal obligation to generate profit for the shareholder. So yes, profit is likely the motivation.
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Much of Apple's webkit enhancements are now proprietary and not submitted back. ⦠Further, the little they do submit back has given them leverage to control the package against public interest: I.e. Webkit rejected support for Ogg/Theora+Vorbis citing Apple. (Apple is a holder of MPEG LA licensed patents).
Go check the gcc mailing list archives. No apple employee is permitted to come in contact with any GPLv3 licensed source code, they had to unsubscribe from GCC-patches mailing lists and have requests people not send patches to the main gcc mailing list.
Apple is an exploiter of free software. Sometimes giving back is in their interest, but don't let that mislead you into thinking that they are a supporter.
Re:Someone call the wambulance (Score:1, Insightful)
Steve Jobs can take his apple and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
I still remember well the 'special' tools required to open a Mac's case.
Re:Apple's reality-distortion field (Score:4, Insightful)
Software distribution is different than physical distribution of books. I'm not saying I approve of the current status quo, but until it gets changed, they distribute "Software Licenses" not "Software", and part of the License is a non-negotiable agreement as to what you can and cannot do with the software.
You merely assume this to be the status quo - EULA's have traditionally stood up ratherly poorly in court, to the point of many of them being considered not much more than a "Please do this." from the company that holds no actual legal force. What a license COULD do is grant you additional rights over what standard copyright allows. Restricting what the purchaser can do is stepping out of bounds though.
Ultimately, if you find their license to be too restrictive, they you need to decide if the restrictions outweigh your desire to have the device. If so, then purchase a different phone with different restrictions. If enough people agree with you, Apple will either not sell enough iPhones, or have to change their licensing so as to allow the functionality you desire. It doesn't mean you are allowed to accept the agreement and then ignore it, legally speaking. You can in actuality as long as you don't get caught.
Or I could chose to test the validity of the document in question. Apple doesn't make the law. They, like everyone else, have to live within a certain framework. If that framework doesn't allow them to set such restrictions, then no amount of their temper tantrums will make it so.
Just because you want and iPhone with no restrictions, doesn't mean that they have to sell you one. I want to have sex with various, unnamed celebrity starlets, but that doesn't mean that they have to let me.
Completely and utterly irrelevant and inaccurate analogy. You cannot use a celebrity as you see fit because s/he cannot become you property (and the law doesn't allow that even if they wished to do so). When purchasing things that can be purchased though (and yes, a copy of a work is an item, not a "license to use an item"), the ultimate authority on what can be done with or to that item is the owner. If I buy a book, I can draw on it, shred it, burn it, recycle it, or put it on pedestal and worship it. The publisher nor author have any capability or legal authority to prevent me from doing any of this.
Re:Someone call the wambulance (Score:3, Insightful)
There are other cell phones/smartphones/computer operating systems.
If you make your own gasoline, the government will get pissed off, and at the very least stop you from doing that.
The government doesn't care if you use an iPhone or a different phone.
All hail the corruption that is the DMCA. (Score:1, Insightful)
This is an example of the new world order under the DMCA. First, they take away your ability to own the content you paid for. Now they're going to take away your ability to own hardware. I fail to understand why the Iphone is so popular, when other devices existed long ago. For example, look at the Palm Treo. I don't understand why so many people are obsessed with apple, and why they let Apple get away with such shenanigans.
Re:No More Cowbell (Score:2, Insightful)
Not so simple.
Imagine Apple powered by RIAA lawyers. (Is it really that hard?) They would pay your phone carrier to monitor activity to and from your phone , building up their evidence of a jailbroken phone . When ready, their super expensive (better than you can afford) lawyers would write it all up and submit it to the court along with 100 or so other cases. As I understand it this is illegal but it's not like our government (US) has been keeping to it's own laws much lately.
Up till now you are clueless, happily enjoying your open device. Then you receive a registered letter informing you of the problem. The case is made against you before you even knew you needed to mount a defense.
Now, you are given a choice. Fork over a good amount of hard earned cash immediately, or face trial.
If you chose trial there will be a panel of highly paid lawyers of a different class than you can afford explaining their case to a probably technically incompetent appointed for life, answering to no one judge. Who will explain said "technobable" to him? Said lawyers of course. This trial will not be for the large lump of cash which was asked for previously in the settlement offer, it will be for a much larger amount that will probably keep you broken for life.
Yes, you are in the right. You were only using your device which you own as you see fit.
Good luck with that.
Re:Someone call the wambulance (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't buy it. I bike, walk and use public transit.
I bet you think you're clever though, with your pithy "Who do you buy your gasoline from" crap. Like living with ideals is an impossible and ridiculous thing that nobody really does and no one is really expected to do. Personally, I disassociate myself permanently from people and organizations I don't like. Won't work for em, won't buy from em, won't be involved, won't help make them strong. Hell, I didn't like what my government has been doing last number of years, so I stopped paying my taxes. Almost went to jail for that, but my hands are clean. I did not help them.
When I can't do this, I acknowledge that I'm guilty of facilitating that which I despise. I recognize that the statement "I can't sever my involvement" is really "I'm not prepared to live in the fashion necessary to sever my involvement", and therefore I'm really just passing the hardship along to others. That makes me accountable to those others, and I may one day be called on to pay the piper, and if they come for me, it will be right and good and my own damned fault.
It's called taking responsibility, maybe you ought to look into it.
Re:Apple's reality-distortion field (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Apple vs. Psystar is much clearer. By default you are allowed to modify software you have bought, but you aren't allowed to resell the derivative work without permission. Psystar is reselling a modified copy of OS X, in violation of copyright law (regardless of what Apple's EULAs say).
Re:Someone call the wambulance (Score:5, Insightful)
Who do you buy your gasoline from?
I don't buy it. I bike, walk and use public transit.
.I bet you think you're clever though, with your pithy "Who do you buy your gasoline from" crap.
Like living with ideals is an impossible and ridiculous thing that nobody really does and no one is really expected to do. Personally, I disassociate myself permanently from people and organizations I don't like. Won't work for em, won't buy from em, won't be involved, won't help make them strong. Hell, I didn't like what my government has been doing last number of years, so I stopped paying my taxes. Almost went to jail for that, but my hands are clean. I did not help them.
It's called taking responsibility, maybe you ought to look into it.
What are you 12 years old? It sounds like you think you're the clever one. The world isn't black and white, it's shades of grey and sometimes you have to compromise and work with people and organizations you don't like to make progress.
Just because you don't agree with elected government officials doesn't give you the right to stop paying taxes and push the cost onto other citizens under some retarded form of social protest. By living in the country, you are accepting the whole package, including agreeing paying taxes, regardless of who is elected.
If you don't like it, legally fight for change or GTFO. You can't bury your head in the sand and just ignore things you don't like.
Re:Apple's reality-distortion field (Score:4, Insightful)
No kidding eh! The occasional /. psychopaths sometime worry me.
The poster stated if they physically try to force you to stop. IE, touching you. If you touch me without permission, that is assault and I will hurt / kill you if I feel the need to. Note by the way that he also said "shoot them" not "kill them". Many bullet wounds are survivable and don't require long term care. However for those of you who are worried about being shot, if you don't want to die, keep your hands to yourself.
Re:Someone call the wambulance (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you don't agree with elected government officials doesn't give you the right to stop paying taxes and push the cost onto other citizens under some retarded form of social protest. By living in the country, you are accepting the whole package, including agreeing paying taxes, regardless of who is elected.
Actually, one CAN do that. Here's the problem with social protest though. One still is held accountable for it. Mandela was held in prison for a very long time because of his social protest.
The idea that social protest should be automatically except from punishment because it's protest is the silly notion. If you want to change the system by doing something illegal, expect punishment and reprisal. Rosa Parks knew she was going to be arrested, and so did many other people fighting injustice the same way.
Re:And so it begins (Score:4, Insightful)
Much of Apple's webkit enhancements are now proprietary and not submitted back
Uh... what?
Unless I'm mistaken, Dave Hyatt et. al. commit their changes to the publicly available WebKit source. The nightlies reflect the most recent version of WebKit.
That wasn't the bit of your post that worried me though. The bit that worried me was this:
Apple is an exploiter of free software. Sometimes giving back is in their interest, but don't let that mislead you into thinking that they are a supporter.
See that alone indicates to me that you don't understand the concept of free software. Free software *can't* be exploited; that's its nature.
What you (and others) want is for Apple to be forced into contributing towards features that you want in a manner that you approve of. Problem is, just as the GCC team doesn't have to bow to Apple's will when it comes to licensing or (previously) architecture focus, neither do they have to bow to yours w/ regards to Ogg support.
And you know what? That's completely fine.
The licenses for the software they use allow that. Now you can (and may) argue that the creators of the software shouldn't have chosen the licenses they did -- but that's a whole other argument. As it stands, Apple uses open source software in a manner completely in line with the license, exceeds their legal obligations, and pays multiple developers to work on code which is then released under an open source license. That sounds like support to me.
Re:Someone call the wambulance (Score:2, Insightful)
Who do you buy your gasoline from?
Couldn't agree more. I am a massive Apple fan and I love their products but this attitude really disappoints me. That would be like telling people they can't install firefox on their iMac's and can't use the provider they have for internet. I agree get a grip.
Re:Someone call the wambulance (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that you should subject yourself to punishment for speaking out against injustice is crazy. Trying to flee unjust punishment isn't wrong, it's sane.
Nobody has an obligation to suffer punishment for not obeying an unjust law.
Re:Jail (Score:2, Insightful)
Judges hear the term jail breaking as some unlawful act whereby a PRISONER escapes from a place they were put, by order of another judge. This is the ultimate offense to a judge barring of course contempt of court, although it could be argued that jail breaking is a form of contempt of court, outside the court room.
They use a term like this regardless of if it means anything to programmers or sysadmins, and it hypes their case. I guarantee no judge has heard of this chroot jail business, and even upon hearing it, if both sides agree to the terminology, the judge will weigh heavily on Apple's side if this is permitted.
Being a good defense lawyer, it would be imperative to strike that term from the record as slang.
Also, IANAL but I play one on TV.