Apple Cuts Off Under-18 Darwin Developer

Crispyking writes "Finlay Dobbie has been a leading contributor to the Darwin project, most notably helping track down the infamous PPP-hang bug. He's been nominated to become a Darwin contributor (which comes with limited check-in privileges) but when going through the process, Apple found out he's under 18 years old, and not only refused to let him be a contributor to this 'open source' project, but canceled his Apple Developer Connection membership (which gives him download access to the source code) on the grounds that because he's under 18, he can't be legally bound to the small-print agreement." Update: 03/26 00:26 GMT by P : Finlay wrote in email that he wasn't getting the Darwin source through his ADC account, but through a third party development project, which he resigned from as a result of all the red tape and the ADC account being disabled.

Comments

So . .

[SanLouBlues]

They're throwing away his donated code then right?

Child labor too, perhaps?

[fgodfrey]

Apple probably has more to think about here than just "can this guy be held to the click-wrap license". There are laws in various states regulating labor for people under the age of 18. I know I had "fun" with this when I worked paid theater shows in high school. Since Apple is going to take this and sell it, couldn't his work be considered "child labor"?

This sounds like such a boneheaded descision, though, that it must have come from their legal department.

Re:Child labor too, perhaps?

[fgodfrey]

Well, while it is blatently obvious to you and I that hobbyist programming is not labor, it may not be so obvious to a judge when presented as "Apple is now shipping a product on which they are trying to make a profit that includes code that was written for Apple by a 15 year old". I can definetly see someone interpreting that as "labor". Also, I believe that Apple could still get in trouble even if both the kid and his parents agreed that it was not labor.

The building model planes part doesn't apply unless you plan on selling them for profit after they are built and don't conform to the laws on number of hours worked at certain times, etc.

Re:Parents or something

[JabberWokky]

In Florida, it just requires you to take your kid to the court house and sign some forms.

Specifically, it can even be used (in Florida) to only apply to a particular contract, a copy of which is included with the forms. It came up when we were fighting the curfew laws here (my little brother, who is a US citizen, was the first person in North Palm Beach to get hit with them - the judge threw out the case, calling the law "ridiculous". Gotta love the three branch system).

--
Evan

Re:What about EULAs?

[ChaosDiscordSimple]

No. The EULA is the only thing that grants him any rights to use the software; if it's invalidated by his age, he has no rights regarding it except, perhaps, to sell it under the first-sale doctrine.

The claim that you have no rights to use software if you don't agree to the EULA is still being debated and has not been well tested in court. I certainly don't need any sort of EULA for other copyright protected works I purchase (music on tape, record, or CD; books; magazines; movies on videotape or DVD; console video games; arcade games; sheet music; etc). Copyright only restricts the right to make and distribute copies. Personal use (including copies for personal use) has never required any sort license agreement. The claim that installation or copying into RAM to run software represents some sort of restricted copying is as silly as claiming that making a tape copy of a CD to listen to in the car is restricted. So why is computer software somehow different?

Don't buy into the software industries claim that you have no rights to a product you purchase. It's on shaky legal ground and they know it. There is no reason for citizens to let them extend copyright in this new way without a fight.

Wow. Talk about your cutting-edge journalism.

[softsign]

So, 3 hours after you posted the story, after ~600 /.-ers have sounded off against Apple, after a few other stories to grab attention have piled up, and at the end of the business day you finally realize that maybe you should occasionally do some research.

The reason? It turns out this kid's rant against Apple was missing one important detail... The one where we learn he was being provided developer access by someone who was violating a legally binding agreement. Maybe that's why Apple went all heavy-handed and cut off this developer's account? Oops.

I feel sorry for the kid if he wants to hack Darwin and Apple won't let him contribute his code back. I don't feel sorry for the kid (or his co-conspirators) for doing an end-run around Apple's contracts and getting burned. Welcome to the real world - you better get used to it.