Slashdot Mirror
Apple's iBooks EULA Drawing Ire
An anonymous reader writes in with one of many articles about the iBooks EULA, this time questioning whether it is even enforceable. Quoting: "The iBooks Author EULA plainly tries to create an exclusive license for Apple to be the sole distributor of any worked created with it, but under the Copyright Act an exclusive license is a 'transfer of copyright ownership,' and under 17 U.S.C. 204 such a transfer 'is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed.' When authors rebel and take their work elsewhere, Apple has, at most, a claim for breach-of-EULA — but their damages are the failure to pay $0 for the program."
The quote is a misstatement of the policy.
Bic Pens Inc now claims exclusive distributorship rights for anything created with one of their writing implements.
Not to be outdone, Starbucks now claims exclusive distributorship rights for anything created while under the influence of their beverages.
"of any worked created with it"? Really? Even the summary isn't in English now....
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Not really, people distributing their works for money aren't typically going to also distribute them for free. That would undermine sales. Some people will distribute works under a pay what you can, pay what you want or pay what you think it's worth model, but in any of those cases it's going to be a commercial distribution.
It might be technically a misstatement, but it's correct in virtually all cases.
Unfortunately, it stipulates that you must sign a contract prior to consideration of your work being distributed through iBooks.
What this means. Don't attempt to get published through Apple or you will be beholden to them in perpetuity AND they don't even have to publish it.
Tricky, scheister-y Apple.
Worst part, there will be an endless stream of authors clambering to be first in line to give up their copyrights in exchange for a chance at being published.
That sucks.
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
AFAIK neither of those formats are actually "free" they both are licensed. Just that they are well documented and the genie is out of the bottle making actual licensing difficult or impossible.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
First entry up on google for self publishing epubs:
http://www.lulu.com/
They even do paper versions.
Deleted
Xcode is free. Who did you pay $99 for it because you got ripped off.
Actually, PDF is an open standard and Adobe has granted anybody royalty free use of it. There may be patents that are not known that could apply, but for now there aren't any that have been asserted.
The MP3 patents are most likely expired by now in the US, that should apply to other jurisdictions as well as the US presently conforms with the WTO's TRIPs
PDF is free and open now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf
Relevant snippet:
"While the PDF specification was available for free since at least 2001,[4] PDF was originally a proprietary format controlled by Adobe, and was officially released as an open standard on July 1, 2008, and published by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO 32000-1:2008.[1][5] In 2008, Adobe published a Public Patent License to ISO 32000-1 granting a royalty-free rights for all patents owned by Adobe that are necessary to make, use, sell and distribute PDF compliant implementations.[6]"
Apple makes great products, and I was their customer for almost twenty years, but a few years ago I gave them up. I could no longer stand the bullshit and shenanigans which come with all their products. For me, the breaking point came when my next-gen iPod couldn't use the $1 cables I'd had with my previous-gen iPod, and now I was expected to buy Apple-branded chip-locked cables for $50. FIFTY DOLLARS!
No. No, no, no. Fuck you, no. I still own and like my MacBook Pro (from 2007), but it is starting to get a little long in the tooth, and in the next couple years I'll replace it with something other than a Mac. I replaced my iPod with an Android pod. I bought an Android tablet instead of an iPad. I'm a programmer who might write apps, but I don't even consider the iOS platform.
iBooks? Sounds great! The world desperately needs to shake up the textbook industry, and I'm happy that a large company is doing something about it. But no, I won't consider it. Since I gave up Apple, they have continued to release products which look great and reportedly work great, but no, I'm not willing to put up with the bullshit to use them, because that would make me feel like a chump.
I do have a sliver of hope that all the bullshit was due to Steve Jobs' personal hatred for his customers, and now that he is dead perhaps Apple will slowly shed that hatred. There are no signs of that yet, but I would expect it to take a while.
Lulu is good. My sister used it: http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/the-god-eaters/16595193?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/1 (Blatant Plug)
Apple isn't demanding to be sole distributor of your works, just of the format it's tool creates. Go ahead and distribute your works elsewhere, as long as you don't distribute it using their modified ePub3 format. Or distribute your works in their format gratis. That's also okay.
$99 annual developer's fee later *cough*xcode*cough*
Well, the big difference there is that nothing stops you from cross-compiling your software on other platforms.
YA.NEWS.SERVICE February 1; Cupertino, California - Apple Incorporated, formerly Apple Computer will again be changing the company name to Apple Syndicate. Anyone who doesn't like it will find themselves in the Baylands wearing concrete Birkenstocks at low tide and sea water at high tide.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
XCode 4 doesn't cost a dime. You only need to pay money if you want to deploy your app via the App Store.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Apple makes no claims on copyright, or on your work - ONLY on output of the software. You are totally free to format the same work in some other tool and sell that.
Again, to put it another way, It's not exclusive as to your content but ONLY TO OUTPUT FROM THE TOOL.
The free tool, that Apple gave you for free. And they ask to make money if you want to sell something produced with it? How dare they!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
$99 annual developer's fee later *cough*xcode*cough*
Well, the big difference there is that nothing stops you from cross-compiling your software on other platforms.
Except when Apple sends you a not-so-nice-gram pointing out where you signed-your-rights-away-in-a-EULA
Doesn't this sound an awful lot like the "Bad Old Days" of the music business, where performers signed contracts, only later to find they surrendered all their rights to some shady producer?
What's old is new again?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
TFA said so plainly. The iBooks format is html5 wrapped is a very thin container (Apple likes content standards). Their authoring tool is essentially a specialized html editor. Nothing stops you from taking the content you used to create an iTextBook and then using it to create a nearly identical eTextBook on another platform. You just aren't supposed to take the exact same thinly wrapped .ibook file and make that available outside of Apple's store. Maybe it's a silly clause, but obviously since they don't claim to own your content then they aren't stopping you from releasing said content in any form you choose.
If it was just about the format it wouldn't be an issue. It's about the EULA. It's about Apple seducing (iEverything looks damn sexy, easy to use, etc...) authors into a walled garden. It's about limiting the rights of authors by hiding the nitty-gritty in a document that doesn't get to be seen until after you've spent all that effort to make a shiny new iBook. You're options at that point amount to: export it to severely format deprived pdf or (by changing the extension from ibook to epub, and again, losing any and all formatting) epub or straight up text (sans pictures, etc...).
The whole reason for using iBook Author was to make it shiny. To give it that magical quality that people lust after.
Now, once a competent conversion program comes out, that keeps all the formatting and everything, the iBook lock-in hurt will be lessened.
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
Except when Apple sends you a not-so-nice-gram pointing out where you signed-your-rights-away-in-a-EULA
I don't get your point. They don't do that in their developer agreement.
iBooks Author (the application) takes your text and layout and generates an .ibook file consisting of ePub/html 5/extensions.
Bison (the FSF yacc replacement) takes a yacc/bison grammar file and generates source code. That source code contains FSF IP in the form of copyrighted source code. The FSF has a special exemption but otherwise, your generated grammars could only be distributed under the GPL.
Generated .ibooks files may contain copyright Apple IP, in which case it wouldn't just be a matter of the EULA.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Really. It's even in the fscking EULA:
"Title and intellectual property rights in and to any content displayed by or accessed through the Apple Software belongs to the respective content owner."
Note the "content". Software (as iBooks Author) creates files or documents or "works", but not content. Authors create content. This content is yours.
If you think this is word-wanking, try the following gedankenexperiment:
You write a book using MS Word for the text, Photoshop for the illustrations and you even buy some high-quality photos for it. Then you import all of that into iBooks Author to create a book for the iBook Store. You also import all of that into InDesign (or whatever software you bought for creating ePubs) to sell elsewhere.
How should the book you created from *your* content be affected by the iBook Author EULA? It isn't. Apple even spells this out in the EULA. The content of course is yours to sell.
I'm not an Apple fanboi and I don't like Apple very much but I think iBook Author and the iBook store is a good idea. I also don't like the EULA terms very much but they are not what some people would like you to think they are. If you want to sell the file created with iBooks Author you can sell it only via Apple. But if you want to sell your content in that book elsewhere you can still do that.
Meanwhile I just hate that kind of sensational journalism that ignores facts and just wants to drive page-views by fueling hate and fury. Really, I'm sick of it. Be rational and READ THE FUCKING EULA.
He was talking about real writers, who drank and wrote fucking awesome novels... that they had mental disorders doesn't factor into this. That they suffered for the art doesn't factor into it. They were fucking great writers not artsy types sipping 5 dollar coffees waiting for inspiration. Inspiration comes from real life and any two bit drunk with severe mental issues will see more of it then any wannabe at Starbucks.
Normal people don't write great works of art. Normal people buy them and wish they had a fraction of the talent without being willing to pay the price for it. The candle that burns brightest, burns the shortest. Now if I was a heavy drinker, had mental problems that would make any shrink go "get him off, GET HIM OFF!" and blew my brains out at the end of my natural life expectancy, this post would have been a lot better.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's $2. I agree with your point though.
The tools might be free of charge, and you might be writing a free of charge application, but getting the result delivered to the walled garden (or even within your own company) is not free: Choosing an iOS Developer Program
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
It's free if you have OS X 10.7. I think XCode 4.x is $4 if you have 10.6, but XCdoe 3.x is free.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The iBook author gets exclusive access to the wealth of iPad wielding iBook customers? That probably satisfies the need to receive something, at least in a courtroom.
The two ideas are *exactly* alike, Mr Apple fanboy! There's nobody putting a gun to your head and *forcing* you to use GPL.
You really don't have to write an application using GPL software, it's just that if you do then you have a vast audience of people who may elect to use it, and also probably a better looking application with a faster development cycle.
BTW, what does really force you is copyright law. It forces you to obey intellectual property rules under threat of legal reprisals.
No it doesn't. I downloaded it from the App Store on 10.7 for absolutely nothing. If you paid for it, you got ripped off.
Those are costs for distributing your app on the App Store not the price of Xcode. From here with such links as:
Download Xcode 4 for Free
and
Download Xcode 4.2.1 for Lion
from the Mac App Store for Free
If you paid money for Xcode, you're an idiot.
Now are you upset they want to help sell the result?
I think he's upset that they want to be the sole distributor of the work, no problem with them helping to sell it and taking a cut of the sales they get for you (well some people might, but i would say that's perfectly acceptable) but if they prevent you from distributing the work you created that's a bit much.
the GPL is viral by force. When you get something GPL, the output WILL be GPL. It's required.
I don't know what you intended, but what you wrote is patently false.
The output of a GPL program is not affected by the license in any way, shape or form.
If you take someone else's GPL software and you make changes to it, and you distribute those changes, then and only then does the GPL come into play.
Apple's software, on the other hand, is insidious because it does infect the output. You are forbidden from selling the output of that software on any service other than Apple's.
So if what you really meant to say is that GPL has no effect whatsoever on how you use the software (as opposed to how you distribute it), and that Apple's software does... then yes, I couldn't agree more.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Being successful and being 'evil' by slashdot standards are not mutually exclusive. Rather the opposite: Most of the things the slashdot crowd opposes are things that would be done either to increase profit or to gain power with which to increase profit in future, so you'd expect the evil companies to be the more successful.
Xcode is a free download, period. You don't have to be a member of anything. See http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/xcode/id448457090?mt=12#
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
the GPL is viral by force. When you get something GPL, the output WILL be GPL. It's required.
Apple's form of viral only works by choice (people buying the products, using the authoring tools). You don't have to write an eBook using Apple's tool, it's just that if you do you have a vast audience of people who may purchase it and also probably a better looking eBook.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they are different approaches to making something viral.
This viral example is silly, I've seen it repeated far too many times, most recently in an old copy of "The Pragmatic Programmer", which is a very sharp book otherwise.
*Every* license that requires you to license a copy of a work in a certain way, if you distribute it, is "viral". Many licenses don't allow you to distribute at all. There's no such thing as "viral by force". The GPL actually allows you to do whatever you want on your own system, completely ignoring the license (making it much freer and less "virus-like" than a proprietary program running on my system that I can't modify legally). It's when you distribute (using more modern terms, "convey") the work that you have to make sure you've got GPL'd source code available (if not readily available, at least by request). Those who choose to license under the AGPL are curtailing unrestricted personal modification, to close the so-called "application service provider loophole". So, if you run an AGPL'd Web service/application, you're required to release the modified source.
At any rate, the comparison you make is non-sequitur:
1. When you modify a GPL'd work and then convey a copy of it, you must license the copy under the GPL (aka follow the terms of the GPL).
2. When you format your own copyrighted work with Apple's tool, you are not allowed to distribute the output of that tool on your own. That version may only be distributed by Apple. The question being discussed is whether or not you've transferred copyright to Apple, which apparently isn't allowed under U.S. law without some signed paperwork.
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
Apple does not lock you into anything,
Or claim any work ownership.
all they are doing is making sure the tool they made is used on their store.
What's wrong with that?
Download free Xcode. Sell on your own website.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Except when Apple sends you a not-so-nice-gram pointing out where you signed-your-rights-away-in-a-EULA
I don't get your point. They don't do that in their developer agreement.
I think many of the people commenting on these threads are confusing things. Whether due to sincere ignorance or an attempt to muddy the debate probably varies. When discussing the free nature of Xcode and self distribution of Macintosh applications, they will invariably thrown iOS development or Mac App store requirements.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Obviously everyone was confused what I meant by "output" in my message, rightfully so from the context...
I didn't mean that a GPL authoring tool would yield GPL covered text. I meant "output" really as "derivative", as in other products made from it must also be licensed under the GPL.
When I talk about Apple I'm talking about Apple products, not "output" as in eBooks.
Sorry for the confusion and all of the misplaced indignation from the GPL proponents (I am one myself).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think he's upset that they want to be the sole distributor of the work
Apple does not want to be the sole distributor of your work. Only the output from the authoring tool.
You are free to author your same work in other tools and sell that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't care if its enforceable or not, as if they are really trying to force you to transfer ownership just for using their 'distribution channel' then shame on them.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I agree that Apple claiming they own the actual output is unprecedented, odd and disturbing.
But it has no practical effect on the author. Everyone is up in arms because they are claiming is has the huge effect of being unable to sell your work through anyone else, which is simply not true.
Actually though there is a real-world president. If you write a book for a traditional publisher you own the copyright but have NO ability to sell it elsewhere, or any control at all over it really. Far more heinous than Apple's terms.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple's DRM schemes do not allow that. That's why I get my music from Amazon.
Huh? You can play music you get from Apple on any device that can play AAC. That includes things like the Zune...
I get some music from Amazon, but some from Apple too. There's no practical difference at this point except that it's slightly easier to buy it from iTunes so often I use that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sole commercial distributor, not sole distributor. The quote is a misstatement of the policy.
And this only refers to the binary produced by the iBooks Author program. Apple makes no claim on your content, you are free to produce other ebooks using different tools and distribute elsewhere.
$99 annual developer's fee later *cough*xcode*cough*
Well, the big difference there is that nothing stops you from cross-compiling your software on other platforms.
And nothing prevents you from generating your ebook with a different tool and selling it on other platforms. Only the binary generated by iBooks Author is restricted, not the content itself.
Uhhhh - a lot of people distribute their work both free, and for a fee. http://www.baen.com/library/intro.asp
In fact, the idea that free copies of your work will "undermine sales" is so terribly misguided - I wonder if you've been studying economics at RIAA University.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I never paid for any Xcode version. Whoever you are, you're smoking crack. you only have to pay when you get signing keys and sign up for the developer program to publish things on the app store (Mac or iOS). Can I get any clearer?
INAL but not enforceable in New Zealand, and would in fact breach NZ Law
There are many, many software packages that restrict the use of their output. Look at the license of the Home & Student edition of Office 2010: you can't use the output for commercial purposes. Same with many packages that come in a free and for-pay version: the free version is non-commercial. The only difference here is that Apple hasn't (at least yet) offered a for-pay version without the restriction. Also consider that business tools are commonly used to restrict distribution as well. Amazon won't allow your book to be part of the Kindle Lending Library if you sell it elsewhere, and that's for the *content*. iBooks Author only restricts the the formatting of the content into a particular output format. There's nothing wrong with a company investing in producing a tool that didn't exist before and which creates interactive eBook output that can't be created easily elsewhere and which can't even be display with full fidelity elsewhere and deciding that it doesn't want to put this tool out there to the advantage of competing stores. Why would a for-profit company do such a thing?
You're still wrong though. Downloading from http://developer.apple.com/ requires a program membership (Mac or iOS), and downloading from the App Store checks your OS version and only gives it to you free if you're on Lion.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Free developer accounts don't give you access to download it. You need at least one paid membership.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
10.7 gives it to you free. 10.6 does not.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Ah, goatse is back! Maybe this is a sign that the trolls are going to go back up in quality.
No... nothing's changed. XCode is perfectly free to download, and always has been. This is entirely separte from the developer license you need to install apps on a physical device. That does cost money.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It is free if you're using XCode to produce Mac apps.
So how come it says free on the web page?
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/xcode/id448457090?mt=12
Usually such people distribute the online version for free, and sell the printed version for a fee. It makes no sense to sell the same online version both for free and for a fee.
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
I'm on Windows and on the page it says, "To download Xcode from the Mac App Store, you need a Mac with Mac OS X 10.6.6 or later .". So where can I get one of those for free?
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
Funnily enough no one ever adds the cost of a PC when quoting the price of DevStudio.
Without buying an appropriate computer you can't program. Period.
You want your education to be based on older inferior technology, just to spite Apple?
No he wants them based on an open standard...like PDF/ePub, or for a more advanced version, HTML5.
...are like? Authors distribute their work through publishers, and each publisher and each is different (see http://beckerinfo.net/scp/2008/02/11/what-to-look-for-in-publisher-copyright-agreement-forms/ to get an idea). In fact, many "highly-regarded" journals have draconian agreements: http://www.arl.org/sparc/author/addendum.shtml If you wonder why legal fees are so high, these guys are one of the two big culprits (the other being the law schools)..
This is a free program that Apple has put a lot of R&D effort into--obviously they are using it as a way of priming their eTextbook initiative and understandably they don't want to subsidize other ebook ecosystems.
Noone is putting a gun to your head, and noone is saying that this is the only format than an iPad can use.
Apple can't acquire your copyright except through written contract. To paint this as an attempt to 'steal' your copyright in the books you write is simply incorrect.
Apple is merely trying to control how you distribute the files outputted by iBooks Author. This is done to try and keep up Apple's walled-garden approach.
Apple's EULA clearly indicates that copyright in the work is retained by the owner. (Section 2.d of the license.)
Apple's EULA still might not be cool, but it does not try and create an exclusive license. (And even if it did try, it fails.)
A lengthier analysis can be found here: The iBooks Author EULA: What does it really mean?
That is your work.
No it's not. The end formatting done is generated from the layout I did by eye, into reams of horrifically complex ePub code. I certainly had nothing to do with that actual code, I just inserted text and other elements it used.
Would you say the output of the word processor should be owned by the creator of the word processor?
No, nor would I say the output of iAuthor should be owned by Apple. But since the output is only readable in iBooks, and as noted you can format your work in any other tool (good luck with that) I don't see any practical issue with that.
Especially not as an author, since that arrangement is FAR better than what a "real" publishing house gives you. In that case the publishing house realistically owns output AND input, even though technically you have the copyright.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is not a BINARY format. A binary format is an executable.
When did that happen?
The distinction between a "binary" file and others was always a bit dubious, though it does have a clear meaning in FTP. (When it comes down to it, it's all binary really. Though early FTP programs would convert between ASCII and EBCDIC when you sent a text file between two systems that used different encodings, a nice feature at the time.)
I was under the impression that it meant a format that wasn't human-readable (something other than plain text). So XLS would be considered a "binary" file type, where a CSV wouldn't be.
How would you classify PDF (it's a mix of both) or BMP (a "binary" format if I've ever seen one)?
epub is interesting, in that it's typically just HTML and CSS (plain text) possibly some images (binary) wrapped up in a zip file (binary). Do you count the wrapper or the contents? Do you call it a mix?
Well, if I were sending an epub via FTP, I'd make sure that I sent it in binary mode.
Required reading for internet skeptics
XCode is perfectly free to download, and always has been.
Nonsense!
This is from the Wikipedia entry for Xcode. It's the best I'm willing to do this late in the evening.
Apple released the final code for Xcode 4.0 on March 9, 2011. The software was made available for free to all registered members of the $99 per year Mac Developer program and the $99 per year iOS Developer program. It was also sold for $4.99 to non-members on the Mac App Store (no longer available). As of July 20, 2011 (the day of Mac OS X Lion's release), Xcode 4.1 was made available for free to all users on Mac OS X Lion on the Mac App Store. On August 29, 2011, Xcode 4.1 was made available for Mac OS X Snow Leopard for members of the paid Mac or iOS developer programs. On October 12, 2011, Xcode 4.2 was released concurrently with the release of iOS 5.0, it included many more and improved features like storyboarding and automatic correction.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Humble Bundle, et al., deigns to disagree.
You want your education to be based on older inferior technology, just to spite Apple? Insane.
What? iBooks are just ePub files. They're far from superior to anything we have already -- they ARE what we have already, though without the free and open standards part.
While electronic textbooks are a bit insane to begin with (and in many ways inferior to printed books), why make that worse by locking yourself to a single vendor for hardware, software, and the books? Who in their right mind would want that?
This has nothing to do with spite. It's just common sense.
Required reading for internet skeptics
That's the boilerplate for all App Store pages. Now if you re-read the page...
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
the GPL is viral by force. When you get something GPL, the output WILL be GPL. It's required.
That's not even a little bit true.
I can write a book using any number of GPL licensed programs and use the work however I like, sell it, give it away, or release it into the public domain. I can compile a program using gcc and release my program under whatever license I feel appropriate.
Apple's form of viral only works by choice (people buying the products, using the authoring tools).
Even if what you said about GPL licensed tools was true (which it quite clearly is not!) wouldn't the same thing apply to those tools? Is RMS standing behind you with a gun, forcing you to use gcc?
Required reading for internet skeptics
I googled Humble Bundle and found a site selling games. We're talking about books, aren't we?
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
Why do people quote Wikipedia like it's the Library of Congress or something?
I have never paid for a developer license. I have never paid for Xcode.
You are wrong! (stop quoting Wikipedia and do your own research. Now get off my lawn!)
Authors can still do everything they could before, but now they have an additional option. Nobody is required to use iBooks Author, even to publish through Apple. It seems like we are in a looking glass world where giving authors additional options that they did not have previously is seen as "limiting their rights." How can more be less?
If your book doesn't make use of the proprietary enhancements that the iBooks Author format offers over ePub, then just use a generic iPub authoring program. You can still publish through Apple, and you are saved the extra work of reformatting your book if you want to publish your work by other routes.
Free developer accounts don't give you access to download it. You need at least one paid membership.
Stop lying! I downloaded with my free developer account.
10.7 gives it to you free. 10.6 does not.
I downloaded it for free on 10.6. End of story.
Everyone who writes software already has a Windows or Linux PC.
No they don't. There are plenty of Mac developers that don't own a PC.
I didn't have to buy any new computer when I started programming iOS. Cost of XCode: 0. Code of development kit: 0.
people distributing their works for money aren't typically going to also distribute them for free. That would undermine sales.
Sorry, but you're 100% incorrect. Very often what seems to be obvious is shown by scientific research to be completely false*. One book publisher thought the same thing as you a couple of years ago, so he commissioned a study to see how much revenue he was losing to piracy. With a book, it takes a few weeks for it to hit the net because it has to be scanned and OCRed, so they looked at how much sales dropped when the pirate edition was availabe. Both the researchers and publisher were amazed when it was shown that rather than a sales dip, there was actually a sales SPIKE. People read the book, liked it, and bought it.
I'll bet you think libraries cost publishers money, but you're wrong there, too. I have a dozen or more Asimov books on my shelf. Were I unable to read library books for free (I've read a few hundred of Asimov's) I would have never bought a single one. Only the rich or foolish would buy a book from an authout he hadn't read before unless it was highly praised by people he admired. BTW, you can get music CDs and movie DVDs at the library as well -- completely free. No charge. Walk in broke, walk out with an armload of books, CDs, and DVDs.
Most musicians give their music away. Of course, most musicians aren't RIAA's musicians. Professional musicians I know wouldn't touch an RIAA contract with a ten foot pole; they know the RIAA is made up of nothing but thieving parasites that suck the lifeblood from artists.
Want some free sci-fi ebooks? Go to boing boing, Doctorow credits his status as a New York Times best seller to the fact that he gives his books away for free on there. As he says, nobody ever lost a dime from piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity.
They're not going to read your book if they've never heard of you. BTW, my old Paxil Diaries on K5 half a deceade ago will be in print soon, at the request of readers. Had I not put them on the net, there's no way I could turn them into a book and have anyone read it.
* another example, although not on topic, is marijuana research. Since all smoke contains carcinogens, it was thought that marijuana cased cancer, so they did a statistical study to back up the hypothesis. They had 4 groups of geezers: nonsmokers, long term cigarette smokers, long term pot smokers, and long term smokers of both substances. They were amazed to find that there was no statistically signifigant differences between long term pot smokers and nonsmokers, and the potsmokers actually had fewer cancers (again, statistically insignifigant). What blew them away was the finding that those who smoked both pot and tobacco had half the cancer rates of those who only smoked tobacco! Rather than causing cancer, it appears to prevent it.
That's what science is for -- to test whether your perceptions are real. As often as not, they aren't.
Free Martian Whores!
You should read the link GP provided. You might learn something. But I'll help you out: Baen books provides some ebooks for free, sells some ebooks for a fee, and, yeah, they sell printed books for a fee.
But notice that they sell for a fee and provide for free. Moreover, an ebook title may only be free for a limited time.
In the case of Apple... I haven't read it thoroughly, but my understanding of the EULA is that you are limited to the product produced by Apple's software being sold through Apple, but that certainly doesn't in and of itself preclude selling the same *content* produced with *different* software through a different venue.
But, really, what is the big deal? It isn't like there aren't other ways to produce ebooks for sale (or for free) elsewhere. Even if Apple has a stupid requirement listed (which, btw, isn't unheard of -- I don't know the current situation but there certainly used to be "indy" game dev suites that similar stipulations) all it does is act as a disincentive to using their software and their retail outlet.
Despite all the hatred Apple gets on slashdot they don't seem to make a habit of cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Not really, people distributing their works for money aren't typically going to also distribute them for free. That would undermine sales. Some people will distribute works under a pay what you can, pay what you want or pay what you think it's worth model, but in any of those cases it's going to be a commercial distribution.
It might be technically a misstatement, but it's correct in virtually all cases.
That's not what the terminology is for. What it means - you can use the authoring tool to sell content with Apple. You can also use it all you want to produce and distribute free content. In other words, free for non-commercial use, but you can profit through it too - we will be your exclusive distributor.
Amazon has signed authors to exclusive deals as well. The difference is, they cannot distribute eBooks on other platforms. With Apple, you can do whatever you want with any tool you want. If you use their tool, you can still do whatever you want... but to sell books on another platform, you need to use another authoring tool.
Richard Stallman was right ------ Again!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I am qualified to positively assert that XCode 3 did *NOT* come with Snow Leopard... or at least did not in Feb 2011, which is when I got my current Mac.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
No they don't. There are plenty of Mac developers that don't own a PC.
They make up an incredibly tiny portion of the market. Developers with access only to a Mac are a rounding error.
Cost of Xcode if you were running 10.6 instead of 10.7? $4.99
Required reading for internet skeptics
Why quote wikipedia? It was handy.
You are wrong! (stop quoting Wikipedia and do your own research.
Sigh, do I really need to do a google search for you?
Xcode 4 available to all on Apple's Mac App Store for $4.99
Hacker News | Xcode now costs US$ 4.99
What Changes with XCode 4 Not Being Free Anymore?
Do you need more? I've got a ton of results.
Required reading for internet skeptics
> We're talking about books, aren't we?
Sorry, I thought we were talking about the behavior of consumers. Is there some special reason why consumers would pay for games even if given the opportunity to obtain them for free, which wouldn't be applicable to books also?
Right, except for those like Cory Doctorow, that release their work under creative Commons and for Publication for profit at the same time!
many companies (including Microsoft) have Student and Home editions of their software and it says right there in the EULA that you aren't allowed to use those programs to produce content for commericial distribution. Look it up.
Your argument has been destroyed and it was the easiest thing I did all day.
Everyone who writes software already has a Windows or Linux PC
Ah yes, the free one that came with the apartment. You seem to live in a world where people cannot freely choose to buy a Mac and not a PC. If you are living in a Wintendo world, why not just develop for Wintendo?
Well over half the speakers (mostly devs) on the last JavaZone conference had Macs. The one explaining how to deploy Java apps to Windows Azure necessarily had a PC because of Visual Studio - but could have had a Mac running Windows.
Which environment has this "rounding error" of yours?
One of the first things I did after upgrading to Snow Leopard was to install the optional extras of X11 and XCode. On the second of the two disks.
They make up an incredibly tiny portion of the market. Developers with access only to a Mac are a rounding error.
How do you know?
Cost of Xcode if you were running 10.6 instead of 10.7? $4.99
Even if it were true, so what? It would be a small charge for software for an obsolete OS. But it's not true.
What you appear to be confused by is that back when Snow Leopard was the current OS, XCode was sold for $4.99. It isn't any more.
Actually you only have to purchase a compatible OS. I can run Windows 7 in a VM (I do this on my hysterically overpriced Mac Desktop Pro) and use VS just fine.
Loading...
An EULA that contains unenforceable claims? How unexpected!
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Not end of story.
"Requirements: Mac OS X 10.7 or later".
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
From where, The Pirate Bay? The download link for free developer accounts (I have one) just links you to http://developer.apple.com/xcode/ - which prompts you to either get it off the App Store (which explicitly states "Requires Lion") or pay for a developer program membership. Logging into my paid developer account removes the prompt to pay but still just links to the app store. Unless you downloaded Xcode 3, which is a free download...
So, um, yeah. Stop lying.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I am running it under 10.6 at this very moment. Now, end of story.
From where, The Pirate Bay? The download link for free developer accounts (I have one) just links you to http://developer.apple.com/xcode/ - which prompts you to either get it off the App Store (which explicitly states "Requires Lion") or pay for a developer program membership. Logging into my paid developer account removes the prompt to pay but still just links to the app store. Unless you downloaded Xcode 3, which is a free download...
So, um, yeah. Stop lying.
I don't know what your problem is, but I downloaded Xcode 4 FOR FREE from my Snow Leopard Mac (I do not have Lion).
I'm not confused by anything. The claim was that Xcode was always free. That claim is false.
Get over it.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Going back to the head of this sub-tthread and searching through indicates that the word "always" was never used.
Someone else on another branch of the thread wrongly said Xcode was always free. That doesn't make you right on the false statement you have made on this sub-thread with me.
I repeat XCode is free. The statement you made: "Cost of Xcode if you were running 10.6 instead of 10.7? $4.99" is wrong.
What the hell? How can that be overrated? I mean, this is offtopic and can be zero'd to death, but really? I made a functional analogy in a well thought out correction, and it's overrated at 1? ONE! How the F~3 does this happen? When did we get that class of moderation?
Was some moderator freezing in DC when scrolling slashdot and did the missed-the-point moderation-of-bias? How do you justify 1 as overrated? Was it the weed? Were you upset that Apple has more lobbying money than your stoned ass?
Meh, -1 offtopic. Still, the above post is just so unfairly underrated. There's a whiny, anoncow grammar-nazi a few posts down with a score of two, and that's offtopic by default! What the F~3?
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
I repeat XCode is free. The statement you made: "Cost of Xcode if you were running 10.6 instead of 10.7? $4.99" is wrong.
Actually, it's 100% correct. I emphasized a key word for you, hope that helps.
Why is this so important to you?
Required reading for internet skeptics
Actually, it's 100% correct. I emphasized a key word for you, hope that helps.
It just helps show you're not even consistent with your tenses. You previously used the present tense
"I can write Windows apps on Linux and vice versa. I can write Android and Blackberry apps on any system I like. I don't need to buy additional hardware or pay for special software. This is not the case with iOS development."
Why is this so important to you?
I'm still posting. But then so are you. Why don't you accept when you are wrong?
Sorry, what was I wrong about? As far as I can tell, I'm still in the right.
On tenses, yes, I use the present tense when it's appropriate. I've used the past tense when it was appropriate.
Would you have preferred that I had written everything in the past tense, even at the expense of readability? I think I'd have lost my mind!
Required reading for internet skeptics
XCode is not free for me. I don't have a Mac and there is no way I can legally get XCode without spending money. Of course, without a Mac there would be no use for me to have a copy of XCode, nor am I even interested in using it, but that's beside the point. The point is, I can't download it for free right now.
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
No, not end of story.
The App Store won't even give it to you (barring a bug in MAS) when you don't meet the minimum requirements- the minimum requirements being OS X 10.7 Lion. I.e. not Snow Leopard, which is 10.6, a lower number than 10.7, which is the requirement.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I do not have a problem. There is no way to download Xcode 4 from the Developer Center unless you have a paid program membership. It says this in no less than 5 places. You have to go to the App Store, which only offers it for 10.7.
Jesus, I can't understand why you don't get it through your thick head that you are clearly wrong. Every piece of information about Xcode 4 disagrees with your assertion. Including no less than three Apple sites.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
No, not end of story.
The App Store won't even give it to you (barring a bug in MAS) when you don't meet the minimum requirements- the minimum requirements being OS X 10.7 Lion. I.e. not Snow Leopard, which is 10.6, a lower number than 10.7, which is the requirement.
I didn't get it from the App store. I got it directly from the apple.com webpage that has development tools. I got it for free and am running it under 10.6.
I do not have a problem. There is no way to download Xcode 4 from the Developer Center unless you have a paid program membership. It says this in no less than 5 places. You have to go to the App Store, which only offers it for 10.7.
Jesus, I can't understand why you don't get it through your thick head that you are clearly wrong. Every piece of information about Xcode 4 disagrees with your assertion. Including no less than three Apple sites.
No reason to bring in your imaginary friend, Jesus, or the thickness of my skull. Fact 1: I am running Snow Leopard 10.6. Fact 2: I downloaded it from a free developer account. Either things have recently changed or you DO have a problem.
I just signed into my Apple Developer account (which is free to join, $99 to deploy) and it gave me a download link http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/xcode/id448457090?mt=12 which says free. I've already put it on my Mac so I know it works.
And if you go to your own F'ing link
http://www.astrobetter.com/mac-app-store-xcode4/ (who posts a link from Mar 2011?)
and F'ing READ you would find the following:
"John July 20, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Following today’s release of OS X Lion, XCode 4.1 is now available for free: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/xcode/id448457090 for details."
Google doesn't F'ing think for you dude!
Google doesn't F'ing think for you dude!
It won't read for you either.
Again, the claim was that xcode has always been free. This is, as I and many others have already demonstrated, a false claim. Xcode has not always been free.
Why is this such a contentious issue? How much of your identity is dependent on xcode having always been free? I'm sorry that I've caused you and a few others here so much emotional distress, but facts are facts.
Required reading for internet skeptics