Slashdot Mirror
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.
They're throwing away his donated code then right?
Apple is technically within their rights here, and it's even (arguably) a good idea. It's a shame that he can't contribute, but Apple needs to protect themselves from liability. Of course, they could accept his contributions via a proxy, I believe, and thus allow him his contributions. Still, it's a shame that we have to do this nowadays...
Useless opinions, worthless observations, and more!
This sucks for the kid - but I can understand where Apple is coming from. Being a minor, NO contract he agrees to is valid - he could do anything he wanted to with whatever information he gets from Apple.
I understand the minor concept, and where it came from, but maybe this hard and fast rule needs to be reevaluated. But what would the criteria be?
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
Not bound to fine print eh.. does that mean he could do whatever he wanted with purchased software, ignoring EULAs since he's not bound?! perfect! reverse engineering and hacking for everybody!
Its not the brightest of solutions but they do need to protect themselves since he isn't legally able to agree to any legaleze. There are also laws about what information they man collect if someone is under 18 (and I don't see if he ever mentioned it before). Doesn't their signup form request an age ?
UPS Sucks
I suggest he excercises his copyright on the code he has written until they change their minds...
Enjoy Y2K? Roll-on Year 2037!
Personally, let the kid code, obviously he's good. Get his parents to sign a guardian contract, I'm sure they're aware of his abilities, and it would make an excellent entry on a resume in the future.
Randal Graves says: I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class... Especially since I rule.
This sounds like such a boneheaded descision, though, that it must have come from their legal department.
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
Now with most laws, he could get his parents to sign the contract releasing such problems, but, he obviously violated the TOS. The government has said that anyone under 18 can't make decisions for themselves, and must have parental consent. Get that consent, problem solved.
Don't go ragging on Apple for this - if they weren't taking these steps, I'm sure a case could be made for child labour law violations.
I get why they are doing this. I mean lets be honest here. Apple is a smart company. They want to have the best people working on their projects.
At the same time, they also have legal issues which they have to deal with. Which is what this under 18 issue is all about. Now this is in no way age discrimination. Many different things could be argued about the whole issue of being under age etc. Basically when it comes to certain contracts and stuff, if you are under 18 they don't apply to you (why do you think there are so many web sites that say - if you are under 18, you need parents permission?).
IMHO Apple needs to get some sense. They obviously have a talented programmer on their hands, why not have his parents get in on the deal (ie - they sign the agreement) while he is under 18, and when he is legal, THEN let him do this on his own.
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
Back in the 1980s, many companies were willing to work with
The day when being a great programmer was the top priority may be gone. Now the first concerns are all legal issues.
The problem isn't with Apple. It's with the US legal system. I've never been a fan of Apple but don't punish them for something that isn't their fault. Instead of griping to Apple, gripe to your congressional representatives on how current laws are stifling our countries competitiveness on a global scale.
Apple has a point here. In most places minors can not enter into legally binding agreements. This brings up an interesting point. What about licenses like the GPL, the Artistic License, or the Apache License, to name a few. If a minor releases software under one of these licenses, do the licenses apply or are they invalid since the minor can't enter into a legal agreement? How does the law treat a minor's ability to control how their work is treated?
i fail to see how apple's covering their own ass is really all that bad. sure, they may have been a bit heavy-handed, but they were only doing what any sane entity would do to avoid a possible legal fiasco
"I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
Couldn't a parent or guardian co-sign the NDa agreement to make it legally valid?
-Karl
It seems that this could set quite a precedent for a lot of kiddies to abuse any EULA for almost anything.
What a great time to be under 18... no restrictions on your software usage, it would be unenforceable!
Apple's merely guarding their flank against potential impropriety.
So this doesn't seem improper then? I don't know about how it looks to you, but while I can see arguments that they could make, it certainly appears improper to me.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Apple is just trying to cover their own colective arses. Here's the deal, say some sub-18 year old kid decideds to take/steal someone else's code [from work, from a friend, etc.] and then submits this code to Apple. Apple likes the code, so it gets included in the Darwin source. Later it is found that the code is actually the IP of aome other company, Apple gets litigated into oblivion, as the code is sitting right out in the open. Apple has no recourse on the sub-18 year old kid.
Apple is not evil, they are just covering their own arse. Yes, I do agree that kids under 18 should be allowed to contribute, but the problem is that Apple is a corp. They need some way to make sure they are protected. "Signing" a document is a good way to do that. Falsly filling out a form is not a solution, it just makes matters worse.
Blocklevel: Practical Information Architecture
Does that mean that next time i want an oracle installation I can benchmark I should have 16 year old install it sho he isnt bound by the terms.
This is STUPID on apples part, this guy showed an affinity and a brightness devoted to apple. They have now alienated him to some degree.
Now that said , if he isnt legally bound by the terms, He could RE-Liscence the code he already wrote and Apple would be forced to remove it.
Thats it lets alienate our developer base.
I asked for certain GPL code, modified by Apple and had a hell of a time getting it (no it wassnt on FTP and per GPL didnt need to be, but I litterally had to talk to their legal dept before getting the code sent to me through the written offer clause)
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Can't his parents co-sign or something? I can't believe Apple Legal can't come up with something. They are not showing much concern for someone remarkable who has contributed so positively.
Lies about crimes
Maybe if the coder's parents signed, it would work. Also, certain states allow "removal of restrictions of nonage." This allows a minor to become a legal adult. In Florida, it just requires you to take your kid to the court house and sign some forms.
There must be some solution of ther than simply kicking the coder off the team. I didn't join ADC when I was under age, but I did write plenty of Mac programs. I don't see how throwing away young talent is a sound business practice.
t'nera semordnilap
I'm 15 and have been an avid Mac evangelist since 1993, when I got my first Mac.
So this kid has been "an avid Mac evangelist" since he was 6!? I'm getting so tired of hearing young people complain how the get no respect and then tout themselves as having 9 years of experience because they've owned a computer that long.
I'm young myself - 23 years old - but I know that I have to put my time in the industry and pay my dues. I don't have 15 years IT experience becuase I had a Commodore 64 when I was 8. I don't have 8 years UNIX experience because I plyed with MUDs in highschool.
Sure, this kid helped out, and he should be proud of what he's done. But this is business, and Apple needs to be able to protect itself legally. Hell, this kid isn't even old enough to pull the french fries out of the McDonald's grease!
I really hope that they are able to work this all out. That makes sense from Apple's legal department, but not from a desire to get good code written. Perhaps they can speak with his parents and arrange for them to sign an authorization on his behalf. I really hope that a good solution can be found.
Alex
He could be tried for Murder as an adult, but can't program for a big company?
Are there any exceptions that are POSITIVE?
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Fine play their game.
Send a bill for your work. Sue for illegal distribution of your work.
You obviously weren't able to legally transfer any copyrights to them, nor work without renumeration.
This could be good leverage, either treat you like a person, or don't, not only the stuff that is to their advantage.
It just pisses me off to see "minors" treated like they have no rights, when "adults" don't take responsibility for their actions either.
When I was working at Apple there was a 17 year old kid working there on Copland (MacOS 8.0 1.0) What's the difference? Oh maybe Apple is no longer an anything goes college dorm. (do they still do the weekly beer bash?)
I always tought the lawyers at apple were BAD. but that story is really the cherry on the cake.
Before lawyers ruled apple, they KNEW the 12 years old useless kid MIGHT become a professional developer and contribute to the apple world.
I know first hand, I WAS one of those. I received free copies of 'confidential' documentations, free access to some developer resources, a bunch of encouragment, LOTS of patience and ultimately a few friendship with some apple people that date back like.. 20 years now!
But then, I spent the last 20 years as a die-hard mac developer, writing many shelf software. so it DID pay to humor me when I was a useless and fuckingly curious kid.
And now, the morronic lawyers decide to stick by their fucking law books and ENFORCE that to everyone with the sense to realize that age has very little importance.
Burn them!
Once I turned 21 I realized that 13 was the perfect age. Old enough to ride my boke to the beach alone, young enough that all the teen aflections don't affect me yet. (girls wouldn't become desirable for a short while yet, and that throws out a lot of hastle)
Sigh, back then I though being 16 and able to drive was great. Now I hate driving. Worse yet, jounior high was right around the corner, and that by far was the worst years of my life.
I guess I could look ahead to retirement, but the way my body is going down hill (and I'm doing better than many my age) I don't know if I can look forward to it.
(I wrote this at http://radio.weblogs.com/0100490/)
Finlay Dobbie published an article about how Apple effectively does not allow minors-- folks under 18-- to participate in the Apple Developer Program or contribute changes to the Darwin project.
Unfortunately, Apple's policy is a reflection of the legal status of minors within the US. The policy is largely out of Apple's control!
The problem stems from the whole COPA/COPPA [Children's Online Protection Act which morphed into Children's Online Privacy Protection Act or something like that] related set of laws.
I actually have a bunch of pertinent technical experience related to COPA/COPPA in that CodeFab built much of the back end engine used by the www.noggin.com site including the editorial tools used to manage content produced by minors.
Basically, if you are under 18, you are deemed a minor and you do not have the legal authority to sign contracts, cannot publish or contribute content that falls under another party's copyright/ownership, and are otherwise severely restricted in a legal fashion.
In other words, Apple cannot directly allow you to participate either as a Darwin contributor or as an ADC member because there is no legal way for you to effectively 'sign' the contracts required to be a member.
While Apple could extend the program such that your parents or legal guardians could give permission for your participation-- effectively signing for you-- that would not actually be enough for you to participate in the programs. In particular, for content produced by a minor to be published in a forum visible to others, several criteria must be met:
Parental consent must be obtained at least once.
Every piece of content must be reviewed prior to being made available within a forum outside of the company that effectively 'owns' the content (in this case, Apple).
If the parent's ever rescind the permission to use content, it must be possible to effectively "unpublish" the content. Imagine the implications within a CVS repository of, say, having to remove the changes in version 1.5 of a file that is now at revision 1.24...?
When a piece of content produced by a minor is actually published, it must be published in a fashion that effectively hides the identity of the source. This part is fairly fuzzy in that it is hard to hide identity when a username is the user's actual name... but the law was not exactly created by folks totally familiar with technology.
The bottom line is that Apple's -- and other companies -- hands are tied in this. They would have to put forth a tremendous amount of effort to make it possible for minors to participate. Even then, a minor could not participate in the full fashion and there is still implied liability.
If you are in this position, your best bet is to have a parent/guardian sign up for the ADC account. As far as Darwin contributions are concerned, it will likely have to be done through some other resource who is of majority age.
There should be exceptions to this rule. Their 18-year old rule makes business sense, BUT, think for a moment, that even Marcelo who is the MAIN maintainer for the 2.4.x stable Linux kernel is BARELY 18 years old and he started working as a coder to Connectiva Linux since he was 13 years old.
And yes, I know someone who wrote his own operating system at his 16 years old, and he had his own company at 18.
Apple should just make an exception this time for people like Finlay Dobbie, if he is indeed a good coder.
That approach would probably hold only as much legal water as looking away while clicking randomly during the installation process, until you hit the 'accept EULA' button. Judges, in general, aren't imbeciles; nor are publishers.
Did you agree to the EULA? No.
Then what right do you have to use the software?
Oops.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Being a minor, he wasn't allowed to license his code to them, but that doesn't invalidate his claim to the copyright. Well - his parents are probably the rightfull guardians of that copyright, but no matter what, if they can't let him contribute because he's a minor, then they can't use his code without breaking the copyright law either.
IANAL etc.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
AND THEN....???
Edith Keeler Must Die
I'm currently 13 years old and am an active part of the Mozilla project. I also have an Apple ADC membership, so this is my official notice to Apple: Take my ADC membership away if you want my username is zachlipton!
:) These kids of life-changing experiences are being blocked from kids as a result of laws intended to prevent child labor. This isn't an issue of my family being poor and needing to sell my soul to Silicon Valley so that they can eat. This is my wanting to do and learn more, something which isn't possible with a class on a college campus on java or web design.
.com's can't afford to spend money (even though the intern is unpaid) on someone who will work mainly part-time and needs a full set of computers, software, etc and requires everyone else in the company to spend time to get the intern up to speed. Besides, who wants to hire a 13-year old? Even if they do, I don't think that they can without violating the child labor laws.
I realize that not everything is Apple's fault, it is just as much our legal system and our general philosophy of how we treat the next generation.
In my involvement with opensource, the only times that I have ever been descriminated against my age was http://www.advogato.org/article/331.html (a total and complete mess) and by various run-ins with child labor laws (I'll get to those in a minute).
Creating policies like this hurts opensource and kids in general. Having to lie about your age to get a Yahoo email account is stupid and pointless. I know several very gifted and talented hackers, people writing the backend code for perl6, or working to make Mozilla/Netscape Composer just a little bit better who have done an incredible service to the community.
Below is a bit of a rant on child labor laws that I wrote in October of last year:
Also, and perhaps more importantly, how do the child labor laws which were created to protect kids from being chained to looms for hours making rugs or soccer balls apply today in the real world. I can't tell you how many stories I have heard (and experienced several personally) where kids have been turned away from great experiences because of these laws. Several years ago, I was set to TA at a tech camp that my school was running during the summer, only to find that I couldn't until I was 15 and only then with a work permit. About 8-10 months ago, I got a contract offer (by email) and a possible offer of full-time work from collabnet to do work for them with the Bugzilla bug-tracking system which I am a developer with. Of course, this offer was quickly dispensed with after I told them that I was 12 years old
Internships are too rare, already struggling
What can we do to make the opensource community and the Internet at large a place where kids are welcome? Everyone talks about making the Internet _safe_ for kids, but don't we really have to do even more than that?
Does anybody remember that this same issue came up when Corel released their beta distribution a few years ago. If memory serves correctly, they were crucified for it; lets see if Apple is held to the same standard.
'Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.' B. Pascal
The issue of age isn't the primary story here. Rather, the telling point is how Apple handled as well as Finlay's account of interfacing with the Darwin folks. Cutting off access without any attempt at communication? Making obvious code improvements painful to apply? Ditching a PROVEN contributor because an NDA can't be enforced?
All this paints Apple in a "we are dinosaurs" light. It certainly doesn't seem to me that they really "get" Open Source, rather they seem to view it as a marketing scheme or a way to get cheap code debugging.
From http://darwinfo.org/:
"Most importantly, the source to most (but not all) of Darwin is available."
Buh? How does partial source qualify as Open Source? I guess it's only "Mostly Open Source".
Anything is possible given time and money.
It is being spoken by a tyrant who is rising to power and wants to ensure that there isn't anyone around who can constrain him to follow the law. Hence, we wants to kill the lawyers to take power away from the people.
How many times are people going to misunderstand the GPL? I know it's a complex issue, but how many times does it have to be explained? Especially here on Slashdot I'd think people would get it by now.
Your homework assignment is to write 100 times : "The GPL affects DISTRIBUTION of software only, and DOES NOT restrict the USE of said software in ANY way."
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
BEGIN MOCKING TONE
Welcome to the new Apple Teen Coder Site! Watch our barely legal teens respond to your commands! These young teens can code in PERL, Java, and even go down and dirty with all the C varients. Watch Our barely 18 teens sign NDAs on GPLed software. Download the movies to your Apple and IPod. Watch them as they help evolve Darwin!
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
Seriously, while I agree that it sucks that the guy cannot submit code, Apple's hands are bound. Apple is a corporation that has a board, shareholders, etc. And while they would like to do otherwise it simply is NOT POSSIBLE.
I hope at least that they give him a free computer or something like that. Show him some appreciation...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Since he's not legally bound by the license, will he give away Apple's code?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Does the slashdot header have an Aqua-style theme for this (and only this) story?? Does anyone else see this? was /. hacked?
I think Back to the Future 2 may have diluted the meaning of that phrase. "The justice system moves a lot faster since they have abolished all lawyers."
"Derp de derp."
Might the young man have parents?
sigh... another bright decision by some guy in a suit somewhere, probably talking on his cell phone right now in a 1200 square foot office with half a donut hanging out of his big mouth, calling meetings and planning to "leave for the day" about 1:15PM...
Bzzt! Wrong. See Seth Finkelstein's excellent analysis of the phrase, which states:
Few people are unfamiliar with the phrase The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Rueful, mocking, it often expresses the ordinary person's frustration with the arcana and complexity of law. Sometimes it's known that the saying comes from one of Shakespeare's plays, but usually there's little awareness beyond that. This gap in knowledge has inspired a myth of "correction", where it is "explained" that this is line really intended as a praise of the lawyer's role.
[snip]
As long as there are lawyers, there will be "lawyer jokes". And lawyers will show how those jokes ring true by trying to explain how such lampooning really constitutes praise for their profession, thus by example justifying the jokes more than ever.
I understand Apple's point of view.
He can just work through someone else. Let someone who's older than him review his code and when he turns 18 he can sign up and be legit.
It kind of sucks for him, but legally he's just not able to work on it yet.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
RAM copies being covered by copyright is silly but there are legal precedents (MAI vs Peak Computer is one) where that is the case.
It should be fair use, because making a copy is NECESSARY to even USE the product, and one is expected to be allowed to use a copyrighted work that one was bought. That's logical, but not in all cases what the courts have decided.
There are also legal precedents where fair use is overridden by the DMCA (the DeCSS case in the Southern District of New York)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
>> Dear Junior, because we can't force you to play
/. mouth is? Ha! I didn't think so.
>> nice, we assume you'll play nasty.
>> Oh yeah, great message. Add in the
>> MPAA/RIAA's "You're all thieves and liars that >> need to be controlled" and we've arrived at a >> really enlightened society where everyone you
>> don't have a strangehold on is assumed guilty.
That isn't their movtivation at all and, furthermore, the analogy to the RIAA/MPAA is poor. You need to understand this: he is a minor so no contract with him is enforceable including licenses like the BSD and GPL since licenses are contracts governing use and other rights one consents to give up for the consideration of using the code. Now imagine what happens to Darwin if the young man's code "poisons the well" so to speak because of a tainted license?
They could work around this if a person of leagl age checks-in the code and takes responsibility. Any of you whiners ready to put your responsibility where your
No, not really. You are still bound by Apple's non-open source license, even if the source code is available.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
I've never actually read that play, but I can just see BlackAdder and Baldrick going back and forth in that scene.
I'm a PC guy who's never owned an Apple, and I'm definitely not a minor (I'm 32), but I had to send them some feedback on this.
I've included what I sent below, minus all the cursing (just kidding). Everyone else here who has the time, please send Apple something similar (be polite if you really want to help Finlay). I really hate to see this happen to a seemingly helpful, bright kid.
-----------
I just read about Finlay Dobbie on slashdot.org. I then read his complete story on his personal website.
If what I read is correct and truthful, Apple has done a great disservice both to its users and itself. The fact that no alternative was given to this bright kid who had already made meaningful contributions to the Darwin project is shameful.
I guess Apple's next move will be to disallow the sell of software to those under 18, since they can't be bound by the EULAs?
By way of this feedback, I *beg* of you to forward this to someone in a position to do the following:
A) Reprimand the person responsible for cancelling Finlays account without any written notice (even after the fact).
B) Talk to the company lawyers and find out if there is a viable solution (parent co-sign, legal change of status to adult, etc.) that would allow Finlay to contribute to the project.
In his writing, Finlay seems incredibly mature about this whole ugly incident. If someone were to approach him with a solution, I'm sure he would regain his faith in your company. An apologetic letter to him about the SNAFU would also do much to redeem Apple in the public eye (I'm *sure* some Apple-hating, PC using, reporter is going to put this kid on TV when they hear the story).
I'm not Apple's biggest cheerleader, but I really enjoy having you guys around even if it's only to keep MS & the PC world on their toes. Please make right what is wrong.
Sincerely,
If it never asks me to accept, how can I agree, or disagree with it?
I didn't avvept any agreement for this win 2k box I use at work, and I won't consider my self bound to it since I was never give the opportunity to read it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Apple has always been very legal about their software and hardware, even more so then any company I know. Its is common for them to screw, lack of a better word, their developers, resellers, clone makers (remember them?), and people working with them for the benefit of themselves. Ask anyone that has been any of the above. Some get angry while others just accept that thats the way Apple is.
It's rather wise to stop contributions from minors, since that person could submit harmful code or something to that effect, and probably not be legally punishable, I'm not sure on that but it makes sense. Also, I wonder even if his parents signed off on it if he could submit code then, that sounds like a reasonable thing. Oh well, he'll turn 18 eventually, he'll probably not want to work with apple then though.
Makes you wonder if law is too tightly defined, doesn't it. I mean why is the chronological age of 18 such a big deal? In the olden days, it was safe to assume that an 18 year old would have a good understanding of consequences. But is that true today? It seems to me that somebody of the age of 17 that can do coding that Apple would find interesting would understand what he's getting into. What happens 20 years from now when 12 year olds will be able to write programs people want?
"Derp de derp."
Marcelo is Brazilian.
Connectiva is a Brazilian company.
Obviously American child labor and exploitation laws do not apply.
I started developing when I was 9 yrs old. Because of California law, I wasn't able to actually get paid for my work until I was 14. At the time I was working as a developer for my Great Uncle's insurance agency doing corporate database development.
;) Anyways, I see both sides of this story. I feel that I was being shafted while under 18, but I also used it to my advantage.
This corporation is run by the books, so basically they told me I could do what I wanted, but that they wouldn't be able to pay me for my work until I turned 14.
I've also been an active member of the development community for the product that I develop with (www.dataaccess.com). I have given many speeches, even submitted source that was incorporated into the language, all while under the age of 18. Now of course I have no problems, I'm almost 21.
But I've also used this whole 'under 18 no contract' thing to my advantage. It came in handy when dealing with a warranty contract on some equipment I purchased. I shouldn't have even been able to purchase a warranty, but they let me. Later when the product broke, I took it back and they told me that the contract stated that I had to send it in for repair, not bring it in for replacement. After pointing out to him that I was under 18 and he could get in trouble for even selling me a warranty, they promptly accepted the broken product and handed me a nice new box.
So I used it for a threat. So what, all the same
In the long run, I would hope that something would come along to patch up this hole in contract law.
I think in California that maybe this has been dealt with. I was able to open a bank account and even have a VISA before I was 18 because my father signed as a proxy on the contract. (He couldn't though access the money in the account, he was not a signor on account, just a contract proxy)
OLIVER
Better VDF than VD...check it out: Data Access
You are under 18, you can
Get married - May need parental consent in some places
Be a father/mother -Greatest responsibility ever... (pay child support for 18+ years...even if you are married)
Decide to end your child/fetus' life (don't get started on the pro/anti abortion thing ok)
Wield the greatest weapon ever created (cars have killed more ppl than guns and bombs ever did)
Serve life in prison for crimes
Pay taxes
Work at a burger shop (does this mean you may get fired because they cannot enforce the confidentiality agreement that keeps thousands of minors from giving up the ingredients to "secret sauce"
List goes on.
But you can't contribute in a meaningful way to anything meaningful that has to do with lawyers.
By the way, the next shrink wrap EULA is getting opened by my 9 year old son......
Well that was an angry almost sarcastic post.
You can play the rigorous legal game, which I personally think is a stupid excuse to raise the GDP without doing anything productive.
Or play the "in good faith" game that most people who want to get stuff done do.
I just hope that the world gets a justice system and drops the legal junk.
It comes down to a balance, you would be irresponsible to loan your car to a 5yr old, although it's okay to let an 18yr old drive it.
Somewhere there is a balance point, and I think in this case an intelligent capable coder is probaly responsible enough irrespective of his age.
Since there IS small print that must be agreed to, Apple is absolutely correct and in the right to remove him. A minor cannot be legally bound to a contract. The only option in this case should be for his parents to accept responsibility - which might be best of all. The kid wont do anything to bust the fine print agreement because the heat would fall upon his PARENTS instead of him.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
I'm 15 and have been an avid Mac evangelist since 1993...
It seems he's been going around making speeches about the great qualities of Apple products since he was 6. Heehee.
I better shut up now, since he's still a better programmer than I am...
-Russ
Me
Haeeors? Haieors? What?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I understand that legally this is what must be but it is also abosolutely galling and YASITWD* for Apple.
They need to make this work. And they need to reinstate his membership somehow.
(Yet Another Step In the Wrong Direction)
This
Did you agree to the EULA? No.
Then what right do you have to use the software?
I agreed to all the terms presented to me at the time of purchase.
If someone wants to modify the contract after the fact, then they can go take a long walk off a short cliff, as far as I'm concerned. Personally, (IANAL and all that) I'd say that your argument would only be valid if the EULA was printed on the outside of the retail packaging to be reviewed by the customer before money changes hands. There may be some legal justification for the bait-and-switch involved in springing an EULA on someone *after* they have purchased the software, but I sure can't see a moral one.
What would Lemmy do?
Did he ever say he was over 18? If Apple asked this person to disclose his age and he was dishonest, then he is getting what he deserves. Now, if they never asked him for his age, they are being absurd. There are plenty of ways they could force him and his parents to go in on an agreement that would be perfectly legally binding (in Apple's eyes at least) and so really the only justification here would be that he lied about his age, if he indeed did.
~ now you know
And I have to lie to do much of anything online.
Within the OS community, I'm completely open with my age. Nobody cares about age--just skills. It's absolutely wonderful. The only other place I get that is in college classes.
But on the rest of the Internet I have to lie. I have to lie to get an instant messaging account, a webmail address, access to a news site, some web space, or a chat room. I have to lie to get API data from Palm, Microsoft and many other companies. Some of these places make it exceedingly easy to lie--for example, one videochat site just has you hit the submit button again, implicitly promising that a parent is submitting th eform this time. In others, you have to jump through hoops to do it. But in most cases it's pretty easy to lie.
It gets on my conscience, though. Every time I lie I feel like a cheat. Every time I pretend I didn't see the "by clicking this button, you agree that you are over eighteen" line, I feel like a bad person. But I do it anyway, because I can't do what I want and need to do otherwise.
I understand that this is necessary because of contract law. However, I think that points to a deficiency in contract law, not in kids.
I haven't thought very long on this issue, but at least one solution comes to mind. It follows the model of child labor laws. Before fifteen (which, incidentally, I think is older than is really necessary) you simply can't work. Between fifteen and eighteen you can work, but with restrictions on what you can do and how long you can do it for. At eighteen, you're free to sell your labor in any way you please.
Perhaps similar provisions should be written into contract law. For example, between age X and eighteen, you can enter contracts unless they obligate you to pay money or do work.
In any case, I believe that the current system is Evil and Wrong. We should fix it instead fo forcing kids to be liars.
Hey, you try to find an open nick these days!
B******t. Apple has released lots of their own code. Just off the top of my head there's CoreFoundation, OpenPlay, Darwin Streaming Server, NetInfo, and their Objective-C runtime. They also actively contribute to projects like apache and gcc. Yes, they're a corporation, and yes, they're trying to make money. That does not mean their interests are automatically opposed to yours.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Look at Red Hat. They're a company. They have shareholders. Yet they manage to take in contributions from anyone.
The problem is Apple wants its cake and to eat it too. It wants to free a part of the operating system, yet remain a proprietary product. It wants to be more open with the community, yet retain Non-disclosure agreements.
Lets face it folks. Apple is a proprietary company--more proprietary than even Microsoft in my estimation. I don't know what prompted them to free Darwin (even with all them requirements upon it). Apple doesn't *think* that way. They think "this is mine, NDA, trade secret". Even the article said that Apple still hasn't grasped the principles of free software.
And don't tell me what is not possible. I don't know law and I don't think you do either. But with enough lawyers I think anything is possible.
And I think Apple has enough lawyers. Perhaps then they can be busy doing something else other than going after Aqua cloners on free systems.
imagine what happens to Darwin if the young man's code "poisons the well" so to speak because of a tainted license?
Being a minor means he can't give anything away either, the IP would still belong to Apple.
Otherwise, all I would need to do in order to get the copyright to the entire Star War series would be to get a minor to hand me those DVDs.
I've just turned 17, and I've been working full-time in the IT industry since I was 15. I started as a programmer for a major New Zealand ISP, and moved up to network administrator within 10 months, and I'm now a software engineer for a New Zealand startup company.
I, personally, haven't had _too_ much of a problem with my age, although there have been some minor issues.
This is New Zealand, and finding people with my skillset and experience is a non-trivial event.
I am extremely saddened that Apple have chosen to discard someone who would probably have been one of their best resources. What I'm also worried about however, is whether or not other companies will follow suit. (Including the one I work for, funnily enough.)
All it takes is one large multi-national to start a trend, and then all people in our age-group will have an even harder time of getting a job in our chosen field.
I think Apple need to go back, and rethink their actions.
The GPL is not a contract. If you break the GPL, you break copyright law, and not even minors are allowed to do that.
I encountered this as well when working on Final Doom, a community doom add-on purchased and distributed by id Software. I was a leading contributor to the project, but was 15 at the time of the sale.
The solution was for my parents to sign the agreement with me as well. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know why this was acceptable to id, but perhaps something like this would work for Apple as well, in this case?
apple had all kinds of choice in this they just chose a BAD one...imagine that Apple treading on customer/support toe's....They could have drafted an agreement with the kids parents, they could have gone the emancipated minor route and demonstrated that in THIS field, THIS minor was knowlegable and culpable. What they chose was to forgoe common sense and be directed by the written letter of the law not the spirit, and once again show that Apple actually has nearly the same lack of respect/regard for their customers that M$ has shown. Apple just has a better PR firm.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Wow - this reminded me of my underage contract story. You all have one right?
When I was 13 years old I had a paper route. And let me tell you, $25 a week was "pimp city" for a 13 year old back then. Anyway, I signed up with BMG under my own name and everything. You know the routine: 8 CDs for the price of 1 gets you in, and then each month unless you explicitly tell them not to, they send you a CD.
I was doing pretty good for the first couple months. But alas, ADD (self-diagnosed) got the better of me and soon I was forgetting to send in the "no CD this month" responses. I ended up with a $400 bill and about 25 shit CDs that I wouldn't give to my worst enemy.
I blew them off until I started getting nasty letters from a collection agency (I'm surprised I never woke up with a horse's head in my bed). At this point I panicked and confessed to my mom. She promptly wrote a letter to the collection agency explaining that I was 13 years old and therefore couldn't be constrained by the contract. Sure enough, they completely dropped it.
Interestingly (depending on how bored you are), the minute I turned 18 I started receiving a shitload of solicitations from BMG. It was like the 8th year after filing bankruptcy.
The usual GPL misinformation.
A "License" gives you the right to do something. Companies like Microsoft have mangled this definition by tying their "licenses" to shrink-wrap agreements - first they take away all your rights to use the product, then their license gives you some back.
When you use or distribute GPL software, you never agree to a contract! This is a difficult concept for people to grasp in this age of EULAs. The GPL simply tells you that you _are_ allowed to distribute the software under certain conditions. If you don't accept these conditions, it reverts to ordinary copyright law, meaning you can't distribute the software at all.
If what you said were true, then it would mean that people under 18 are allowed to violate copyrights, which is quite different from nullifying contracts.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
This is actually one of the greatest disservices done to shakespeare in the schools, and it's why everyone hates it. Shakespeare was not an author, he was a playright, and plays are meant to be acted, not read. Reading shakespeare and then writing a 10 page dissertation on it for your intro to lit class isn't going to teach you anything about shakespeare, and deriding someone who's only read it and never seen it, and in fact assumes that reading is the appropriate way of experiencing it, is perfectly vald.
Love teenagers, go to jail. That's the law, unfortunately.
As someone wrapping up his first year of law school, I can relate to frustration with the arcana and complexity of law. However, as a hard-core (and until recently, professional) computer geek, I can also relate to frustration with the arcana and complexity of hardware and software. That doesn't mean I think "First thing we do, let's kill all the geeks" is a positive sentiment.
The law is complex and computers are complex -- frankly, everything in life is complex. There are things that don't seem complex because we have evolved to be capable of doing them unconsciously - breathing, for example, or walking. Agriculture is phenomenally complex, and in our society there are relatively few who understand it. (I, personally, can't keep a houseplant alive without instructions. In another era, this would make me dead.)
Compared to agriculture, legal systems are spring chickens - the common law tradition dates back (in recognizable form) less than a millennium, to the aftermath of the Norman conquest. In that time, the range of possible human conduct has vastly expanded, mores have changed, whole religious doctrines have arisen (Martin Luther wasn't even born 600 years ago), etc. etc. and the law has tracked these changes. Admittedly, it lags behind, and tends to accumulate cruft (ask me about fee tail estates or the rule against perpetuities sometime!), but by and large it does the job we ask of it, which is to (A) provide a binding forum for resolving disputes between private parties and (B) provide a check on arbitrary exercise of state power.
Now, I would not suggest that the legal system is perfect, nor that it accomplishes even these two basic functions perfectly or even with competence in all circumstances. I would, however, suggest that "let's kill all the lawyers" is not a good idea. Yes, access to the courts is an old and enormous problem, SLAPP suits are a problem, volumes of statutes that always grow and never shrink are a problem, judges who don't understand modern technology have always been a problem, etc. etc. "[K]ill all the lawyers" is not the solution to any of these problems. To those who would replace our legal system wholesale, I pose the question - what replacement, then? The Chinese system? Hey, no lawyers, just arbitrary judicial authority unchecked by anything but familial and political alliances. Is that preferable? Or maybe we just do away with vast chunks of legal code? Sounds good to me - less to read. Which chunks? Who gets to decide? Legislatures? We've got those already. Appellate courts? I thought we were getting rid of the lawyers. An all-powerful executive? There are plenty of places in the world where the executive makes all law - none are particularly pleasant places.
Anyways, I'm rambling. The point is, simply, that just because a field of human activity is arcane and complex and touches your life doesn't mean that exterminating the practitioners of said profession will necessarily improve your life.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Though I bet if he were to turn his talents to malicious hacking and if he were caught, he would be tried as an adult. Ain't this country great?
I thought that Darwin was Open Source, or at least some people said so. Now I'm kinda confused.
Shake-speare (very common)
Shakespear
Shakspeer
Shaksperr
and
Sheakspear
...you file independently. Tell mom & dad that if they want to keep that juicy deduction, their asses had better cough up some cash to the cause of getting you educated. If they're not supporting you and you're filing returns of your own, they shouldn't be claiming you. I'm sure you love mom & dad, but point out to them that they are screwing you over by:
1) Claiming you.
2) Not giving you shit.
3) Messing with your FAFSA (and thereby awards & grants) due to #1.
And that if they don't fix the situation, you call the IRS. Christmas may be awkward for a few years, but remember that they're screwing you.
The name slips my mind. Does anyone remember? This kid just hung around Cupertino in the late 1970s and worked up to a pretty high position in Apple. I believe he was on the Mac development team.
This is yet another example of a lawyer having his head firmly wedged up his ass and being surprised that maybe not everything is brown and smells like shit.
Jobs should fire the fucking lawyer, who does nothing but cost him money and piss off his customers.
In fact, I'm going to write to him right now and suggest exactly that. Bye.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Amazing magic tricks
The joke is in the moderation.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
The difference is that computer geeks don't usually use their grasp of arcana to fleece people, whereas many lawyers will use their knowledge of the law to harrass enemies of wealthy clients, fleece defendents with deep pockets, needlessly complicate otherwise simple transactions with legal nitpicking, and otherwise make our lives more complex, more legalistic, and more adversarial.
Successful geeks make their money largely by hiding the complexity of their craft-- by building clean, simple interfaces to complex underpinnings. Lawyers, on the other hand, often use the complexity of law as a club to intimidate less-clever opponents.
People don't hate lawyers because they're good at mastering arcana. They hate lawyers because too many of them use their grasp of arcana to enrich themselves by fleecing and harrassing others. There are estimates that every lawyers who enters the profession costs the US economy more than his salary in dead-weight costs. It's that dynamic-- not a resentment of success of intelligence, that I think drives resentment of the legal profession.
I hope she made you pay that $400 bill. The last thing we need is to bring up yet another generation on the idea that they can weasel out of any obligation they find inconvinient.
No she didn't make me pay. And considering that BMG's entire business plan is based on bilking people for shit they forgot to tell you they don't want, I can understand why. There's a reason that minors are not able to legally enter into a contract - they're fucking irresponsible. And surprise - I acted irresponsibly.
BMG's membership plan is framed on deception. I don't feel particularly guilty about it since as a 13 year-old, they duped me into signing up.
P.S. - I find it ironic that someone whose handle is "Weasel Boy" is lecturing me on the principles of integrity.
I was around when Apple was two guys in a garage with a silly looking prototype in a wooden box. In those days a lot of the best hackers were either very young (one outfit was run by a 13 yr old out of his bedroom), on SSI, on drugs or some combination of the above. Apple used to have hippies in vans camped in their parking lot for weeks in hopes of getting an interview. For them to act like a bunch of stiff suits now and particularly on such stupid legalistic grounds is utterly disgusting.
What the hell is Open Source about their process?
Nope.
The GPL cannot and does not take legal precedence over copyright law itself. The definition of derived work, and the definition of who owns a work, is the same, regardless of whether the GPL or the BSD licence is used.
If I write a patch to the Linux kernel, then I own the copyright to that patch, unless I explicitly relinquish the copyright. By default, nobody can do anything with my patch without my permission (subject to "fair use" exemptions). Linus cannot put my patch into the Linux kernel unless I give permission. One way for me to do this is to release the patch under the GPL.
The GPL cannot take away my ownership rights to my patch. What the GPL does is to prohibit me from distributing a copy of the Linux kernel with my modifications, unless I release those modifications under a licence compatible with the GPL, or place them in the public domain, or sign over the copyright to my patch to Linus.
Doug Moen
I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
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.
You may rest assured that computer geeks use their grasp of arcana to fleece people all the time. I see it all the time, from BOFH-types I'd encounter on the job to Bill Gates.
Yep. Unfortunately, this does happen, though wealthy clients who want to harrass enemies, real or imagined, will do so regardless of whether they hire a lawyer or a layperson to prepare the paperwork.
A lawyer who takes his deep-pocketed clients' money without winning cases will very soon have no deep-pocketed clients to fleece. Again, this behaviour (not to excuse it) is hardly unique to lawyers; as a contract UNIX admin, I'd spend 4 gigs out of 5 cleaning up after some previous geek who had fleeced my client in the past and stuck them with broken or unmanageable systems and networks.
Like what? Wherever you see "nitpicking" in an agreement, you should know that means every one of the nits being picked has, at some point in the past, hatched and bitten someone in the ass who didn't expect it.
Well, I don't think life would be any less complex or adversarial without lawyers, but I realize this is a point on which reasonable people can differ. I agree with you on "more legalistic" but that the existence of lawyers makes life "more legalistic" isn't a stretch, it's tautology. Computer geeks make life more complex and "more technologistic," but I don't count this against them.
I'd love to see a reputable source for this. It sounds pretty difficult to quantify, given that money that goes to lawyers doesn't vanish out of the economy. I won't argue that there aren't overpaid lawyers (or overpaid computer geeks), but that money doesn't just disappear.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
If you read Finlays missive carefully, he raises the question as to whether Darwin is really OPEN source and whether it will succeed the way Linux and BSD have by attracting outside developers to contribute. His main arguments are that the bug tracking system "Radar" is not open and that they make it too legally difficult for anyone (even older than 18) to become a Darwin committer. These are very valid concerns and much more important than whether 15 year olds can sign an NDA....If Darwin is truly open source, no NDA should be required!
So, what do you think? Will Darwin be successful as an open source project or is it a closed source project masquerading as an open source project?
Y
no sig.
ppp bug? Who cares about that?!
Could someone please track down the Infamous "aqua won't run on x86" bug.
thanks.
Yeah...I seem to remember those things, but my mom always told me that I should read more often and stop watching the damn theater so much - that it'd rot my mind :)
Problem is most of the local theatres like to do the musical standards - very little classical stuff. And the ones that do are further than I care to drive, or are a pain to get to.
This just goes to show that Apple does not want to be free. The only future "rights" that can be protected this way, is for Apple to keep you from:
Using your software as you see fit.
Changing your software to suit your needs.
Sharing your improvements with your friends.
Allowing your friends all the above rights.
Don't tell me that this was not HIS software, but was Apple's. He was writing it, it was his as well as others. As with most non-free software interests, Apple locked our friend out of his work.
Why do people appologize and defend such obviously ugly behavior? Once again, the downsides of non-free development are made manifest. What were the benifits? That more people would use your code thanks to Apple's marketing department? That Apple would better control quality? That Apple's co-operation with other non-free software and hardware vendors would make sure that users of your code could use hardware not available to others? That you would have to give Apple money to have your software back? As you help Apple to deny other's rights you make them stronger and more able to do things like this to you. If you consider such impositions "protecting future rights", you are really warped.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
N.L.
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
Here it comes. Chants of "Apple had to do this to protect themselves!" from unwavering Apple fans.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
Nice to see how the other open-source developers in the community stood behind him.
Or is the 'community' a myth.
They should have all said "You lock him out, we all quit"
The movie business already had to contend with this. There are child actors all the time, creating content (performances), who are working and legally contributing. There are different rules for child actors than regular actors though, including shorter maximum shooting days, trust fund witholding (so that parents can't take the money from the kid before their old enough to use it), and other rules specific to minors. Sometimes studios decide they don't want to go to all that trouble for a role (why do you think everyone on Dawsons Creek or Beverly Hills 90210 was not *actually* in high school?) and hire younger adults anyway. But many times they hire minors, and because they law is figured out already, they do what they need to. Child actors can do what they love, and the government can still keep children from being exploited (as much as they can anyone).
Perhaps this is a good model for software development as well? (As are other corellations between making movies and making software.)
-Trout
So, I might buy an imac anyway. When, oh when, will the Apple folks trust their superior hardware design's ability to sell? This whole propriatory software swindle does more to hurt them than it does to help. Imagine a Mac Debian distro as one of the simplified install optptions or simply preloaded. Kinda like, "here you go, have a movie editor, CD burner, and software to make all these cool gadgets work. You can install more if you like, after all it's your computer." Yes, I really would buy one, and so would everyone else.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Free software that runs on their hardware is a blessing to their business.
/. people are just so knee-jerk, it kills me ...
So they do everything they can to help out, within the realms of their existing business model... until *someone* works out an economics model that functions under OSS ideologies capable of supporting an organization as *Big* as Apple, its staff, and shareholders.
But really, quit bitching about it. Apple make great hardware - and are *STILL* doing great things for computing for the masses, even to this day.
Not that there aren't other options, but while you've still got options, quit complaining about one of them!
This under-18 issue is really not worth the hooplah - its technologically tabloid. As others have stated, big deal - he'll still write OSS, he'll probably still love computing, and maybe he'll still end up contributing anyway.
And there's always emancipation!
Really, sometimes you
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
actually they could have ignored it entirely.
obviously the kid is on apple's side (or was) and wasn't going to do anything against them. if they hadn't done anything about it, it wouldn't be in the news, no problem for them. this is a classic example of a kneejerk, lawyer reaction that nobody thinks to question.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Why do you think that he is a US citizen? In fact, he seems to be British:
http://www.btinternet.com/~finlay.dobbie/ : (=British Telecom)
Well it is possible for a US citizen to be resident elsewhere. Though it's starting to sound more like someone in the US attempting to apply US law to someone who is not resident in the US and most likely isn't a US citizen.
Back to the issue of application of national laws over the Internet. Who's law applies if you are accessing a computer in another country?
a) that of the country where you physically
b) that of where the machine you are accessing actually is
c) that of where the machine you are accessing perports to be e.g. use of a country TLD, contains a catalogue with prices in one currency.
According to this page the following projects are open sourced under the terms of the APSL:
Cocoa isn't open sourced, nor is NetInfo, nor CoreFoundation according to this list. I couldn't comment on whether they contribute to apache and gcc or not.
The GNU license suffers the same age of accountability limitation. So, MS could use 18 year olds to circumvent the GPL and there'd be nothing a court could do, since the age of accountability (contract-wise) is 18 in the US.
Actually there is plenty a court could do. Since using GPL code without following the GPL is "copyright infringement" (or as the likes of Microsoft prefer to call it "software piracy"). The only way Microsoft could get off the hook here would be to sucessfully argue that copyright does not apply to software. Which would be a complete "foot shooting" exercise.
The GPL is not a contract.
Actually the GPL is a contract, which allows you to do things with a copyright work you would not otherwise be allowed to do. In exactly the same way that a publishing contract can allow a publisher who is not the copyright holder to publish a copyright work.
Once copyright is something that expires after seven years or so, *whoosh* all that GPL'd code... mmmmm, tasty......
Not all GPL code, simply that which hasn't been altered for 7 years. Any active project would still have the current release fully protected by copyright. Microsoft would probably be very worried about new versions of Windows 95 which run well on all the latest hardware though...
There's a reason I ask: Individual Education Plans.
These IEPs are wonderful little inventions that many states have written into their education laws; basically, what they are is a way out for you and your school when/if you want to do something other than sit with a babysitter who happens to have teaching credentials.
It may be difficult to write an IEP until you get into high school, but you can begin researching some of the possibilities now. I remember finding The Gifted Kids' Survival Guide most helpful when I was about your age, though I didn't get off my ass and seriously pursue IEP stuff until 11th grade.
If you live in a state with sensible gifted education laws and in a school district which respects those laws (or have an intimidating attorney ready to go to bat for you), then it is possible to essentially write your own education plan. You may at most be able to get a few periods a week - there are still some courses you'll have to take, and doing poorly in them could scuttle everything else, so you'll just have to suffer through history of Western Civ. However, in the "spare" time you'll be able pursue anything you want; my personal suggestion would be to contact professors at some local college or university (there are probably some community college professors who would love to see anything approaching a talented and motivated student) and get them to sponsor some computing projects. This adds an air of academic legitimacy which your public school is going to need to feel good about letting you do something school administrators can't understand.
My IEP senior year specified AP Physics, since the offered physics course was a complete and total joke. I was lucky, and got five periods a week and an expanded book closet with desk. Occasionally they'd throw some old hardware at me, and halfway through the year the teacher who was nominally supervising me got promoted to an administrative position and I was left completely alone. It was a good year.
Personally, I see this as the fault of the kid. Had he just approached them and said "look, I'm under the age of 18, what can we do" I suspect the folks at Apple would have worked things out with him.
As it was, he signed a contract. He falsely identified himself as someone who could LEGALLY sign a contract. This is no different than using a bogus drivers license to get beer.
It does NOT mean that he can not submit code - it merely means that the process at the moment does not include a method. But these things can be worked out. Instead, people want to just light up the ol' flamethrower and start toasting without regards to facts (and the fact is, ANY contract can be modified, altered, or updated as long as BOTH parties agree).
But it is just a helluva' lot easier to flame 'em, right?
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
is this even an issue of him committing to the repositories?
from reading that article i get the idea that nothing has changed on that, and his work as a darwin developer/committer can continue.
his issue was solely with the adc program, and the fact that apple requires even online members to agree to an nda; and the fact that you need to be an adc member to download the dev tools. this is where the age issue applies, this has nothing to do with darwin.
reading the article, he decided to give up on the darwin project because of his issues with adc.
that's what his article says.
what it doesn't say is who exactly made the decision to follow-through with the decision to revoke his adc privileges.
he mentions darwin a whole lot, but this is apparently an adc issue and not a darwin issue. for all we know the "darwin people" at ï£ might have gone to bat for him [and struck out] or simply not known, or had no say in the matter.
we don't know what happened in that regard.
imho his article portrays the darwin project unfairly.
and yes i agree with him that apple shouldn't require an nda to download the dev tools.
apple shouldn't require an nda for online members because online members and student devs (for the most part) don't get any pre-release software.
but finlay is well respected on the darwin lists, and it seems people are trashing the darwin projects unnecessarily here.
nibs
They don't have any choice about accepting code, because effectively, he can't assign copyrights for his changes.
this has nothing to do with accepting code. according to the article he _can_ continue working on darwin.
it's just a hassle for him to get updates to project builder, interface builder et. al. apple's gui tools.
the cli tools are a part of darwin ofcourse.
It was really low that they didn't refund his ADC account.
in the article he states he wasn't old enough to get a student account. this leads me to believe he had a free online account.
if he had a select or premier account, he wouldn't have mentioned/cared about the student account.
it's shady that apple wouldn't offer a refund, but apparently he hasn't lost any money at all.
NetInfo and CoreFoundation are part of Darwin and available here.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Those are some quality inferences... You're absolutely right. I am anti-democracy and pro-slavery (oh, and lazy and cowardly). Go status quo!
/. to post a story that is so obviously one-sided (and by the kid's own admission, incomplete). At the end of the day, thousands of eyes have seen "Evil corporation smacks down poor kid" rather than "Cautious/Lawyer-filled corporation covers its ass". There's a world of difference. All it would have taken is an email to follow-up with Finlay.
I never said I didn't think the kid should be allowed to contribute if he wants to... I was making the point that it's irresponsible of
It's also irresponsible of Finlay and his ADC account-sharing friends to think that surreptitiously circumventing a legal agreement is going to produce the desired result... That's where the "real world" comment comes in... In this world, you can expect repercussions when you break contracts. And that's what he and his friend did.
God forbid an opposing viewpoint...
Look the point is, he lied and got caught. There are some consequences. Pretty damned minor if you compare with someone like Jon Johansen. Apple legal has to cover ass because this kid is clearly not bound by any license agreement. Hopefully they'll work something out where he can contribute.
The GPL is a license which allows you to do things with a copyrighted work you would not otherwise be allowed to do. A contract is an agreement where two parties exchange something of value; both parties have to explicitly agree to the contract and have to be over 18. You don't have to agree to the GPL, and you don't have to give anything in value, and you don't have to be over 18. If you do anything with a copyrighted work that is not allowed by the GPL license, you are breaking copyright law.
Does this mean that a minor can revoke the EULA and Sue say Microsoft for selling them a 'broken' product? This could be pure gold. Computers are most popular with teenagers anyways, even though it's generally the parents who own them. If anyone under 18 can revoke EULA fitness protection then there could be multi-billion dollar class action for companies selling broken software.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
I know that it's heretical to point this out, but the fact that 16-year-olds are worse drivers than 18-year-olds is at least in part because they don't have two years' experience.
The guy was wrong, though. If it were just restrictions (which already exist), it wouldn't be that big a deal. Many states are considering raising the driving age to 18, period. This seems to be based on two assumptions: