Slashdot Mirror
EFF: Apple's Dev Agreement Means No EFF Mobile App For iOS
schwit1 writes The EFF launched a new app that will make it easier for people to take action on digital rights issues using their phone. The app allows folks to connect to their action center quickly and easily, using a variety of mobile devices. Sadly, though, they had to leave out Apple devices and the folks who use them. Why? Because they could not agree to the terms in Apple's Developer Agreement and Apple's DRM requirements.
from change.org
that a few internet idiots "sign" thinking that those in power will care. while us old people go out and vote and elect the people the internet idiots complain about?
Well, I'm sorry for the EFF, then, but everyone knows what the terms are to get an app in the iOS App Store.
This sounds, to me, like the EFF allowing slavish adherence to their principles to prevent them from doing something that might actually help real people in the real world advance those principles in meaningful ways.
Either that, or they just realized they could use it as a publicity stunt.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Right now, the app is an alert system designed to tell you when we have new campaigns
Okay, let me get this straight - the EFF has their knickers in a twist because they don't like Apple's terms for their walled garden. I'm sure Apple users are really upset that they can't download an app whose purpose is to spam them.
Trying to complain about spam when it comes to free apps is kind of like complaining about the smell of tomatoes in a ketchup factory.
The entire point of free apps is to hammer you with spam until you actually spend money. There's no getting away from that shit, so don't assume consumers are somehow upset. They agree to be spammed every single day with the other 73 apps installed.
I agree with a few of the items they list, but not with the "DRM" (it's not really DRM in the classic sense) issue. I personally think that's important to maintain app store security that protects non-technical users.
But to not release an application over this is absurd. This potentially hurts many more people than it helps... you can still complain, still put together a petition while still delivering the app - in fact it's MORE of a statement because it goes against the clause that developers "cannot talk about the developer contract". Push out the app while maintaining the petition and dare Apple to pull it so you can sue them and take action through legal means to revise the contract.
The way they are doing things right now guarantees nothing at all will be done to address the times they list, nor will as many people use the application they have developed.
I had ceased donating to the EFF in years past because I thought they were doing some kind of crazy things that were a waste of money, and I don't like donating to groups that waste money. I just donated to the EFF at the end of last year and here they go again... really thinking of withdrawing my donation.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's an app for getting the EFF news bits to you quickly and easily. If you didn't want that, you sure as hell wouldn't have installed it in the first place.
After all, do you jump in the pool when you don't want to get wet?
This isnt just an EFF issue, although I can see them using this publicity to highlight the greater point. Apple TOS for the store is nothing short of a labor camp for developers. Apple owns content lock, stock, and barrel. Compared to Android they control far more of the application, its licenses, its content and how it interacts with users than many programmers are comfortable with. The cusp of their assertion is that you dont make money with your app, Apple makes money with your app. Youre just the fingers on the keys.
The app store highlights a controversial opinion but it must be said: Steve Jobs was no hacker, and he certainly wasnt the laureate inventor we all insist upon. he was just a very successful and very lucky businessman who was every bit as ruthless and myopic as Bill Gates. He just had a better PR team.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I had to switch from Linux back to Windows because I couldn't bear the spam.
This story is about Apple not BlackBerry.
The things they're complaining about are certainly restrictions on freedom... but they directly address security concerns and protect the user at the same time. It's a walled garden - good and bad. Why can't they simply write a web app for this instead, and stop their complaining?
There's a reason that Apple's devices are smooth, reliable, and stable... and you just can't have that when you live in the Wild West of completely open software. Yes, it means putting some trust in a company to get there, but I don't see that as any worse than the alternatives.
So EFF - I have made large donations to you in the past, but pick your battles and stop wasting my time and money on the bad fights.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
They sat down at a meeting, Junior PR Guy: "We should make some mobile apps!"
Senior Manager: "That's a great idea!"
Principle Lobbyist: "Apple's TOS sucks, we can't do that!"
Senior PR Guy: "Wait, wait... we can use this. We'll do the Android app, then make a public complaint that we can't release the iOS app because of Apple's TOS. But we don't actually have to build the iOS app."
Senior Manager: "I approve, go for it!"
I have an app on my phone for slashdot, because slashdot has multiple interesting articles every day, as well as discussion about those articles.
The EFF? Nope. Their first petition is just hand-waving. What a waste of time.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
no. they just explained why they dislike the apple Dev agreement.
something the development agreement would prohibit then from doing if they agrees to it.
personally I find it funny now all the apple users are finding the "coolest" apps aren't available for their device.
although I wouldn't put this eff app in that category.
which is the last link in the submission. I'm an EFF member and re-upped last month and couldn't be prouder and their reasons are all sound.
Yes, you get elect a person from a limited group, one carefully selected for compliance by the corporations and the powerful via their proxies, the political parties.
You may even think it makes a significant difference which candidates you pick. Most often, it makes no difference.
It makes more difference which products you choose to buy. The real trick is figuring out what that difference will be. All corporations aren't as clearly aligned as the Chick-Fil-A leadership, who wear their objectives on their sleeves and so tell you exactly how the influence they exert via the income from customer patronage is actually used.
Other influential corporations with clear alignments include Wal-mart, Google and Apple. Your support of those companies directly furthers their objectives. So you might want to trouble yourself to see what those objectives are.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Sounds like good marketing by the EFF. They throw a hissy fit, gets people to notice that they have an app.
that was published in 2010.
Look at the last link in the post. It's from March 9, 2010.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
It sometimes helps to play by the Devil's rules. You can't fight without getting dirty or win wars with smiles and flowers.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
im not so sure its the EFF who is complaining (didnt RTFA) but people in general bitching about the restrictive apple ecosystem (which is nothing new, its been this bad for developers since day 1)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It's a labor camp where people are making money.
Go back to the day to app stores like getjar. Did you even know they existed? Did you know how people bought and sold software before app stores? Did you know how developers did?
I do, and it was expensive to sell. The app store led the way to what is almost a zero-cost way to sell your software. You didn't have to provide a few thousand copies of your software as "payment." You didn't have to print a box, manual, and make physical media.
Saying the app store and its execution weren't a great revolution shows that you are totally ignorant of how software was made and sold only a few years ago. Small developers for software really didn't exist. Nobody pays for shareware, and making a living as a small dev was basically impossible. The app store basically recreated the hobby developer market, period, and brought it to a level of mainstream that was never attained by normal PCs.
Better PR? Apple does have better PR. But Apple also does things that nobody else things will work, and makes it work well. Making something work well is substantially harder than you can imagine.
I personally think that's important to maintain app store security that protects non-technical users.
Android's model is perfectly fine. The play store is there by default. The ability to use other stores is off by default.
Non-technical users are perfectly safe. My mom is NEVER going to alter those settings or go outside the official app store. Neither do my in-laws.
But I can have F-droid, and support HumbleBundle, etc.
There is NO justification for Apple's policy except greed and control.
No, voting for candidates isn't like change.org.
The petitions on change.org have a significant record of actually working to change the issue at hand. This has not been true for voting for these preselected candidates for some time.
At best, with legislators, your vote might make the difference between candidate A and candidate B. The question whether that difference will result in actual change spans issues from the effect one good legislator can have in the context of five hundred and thirty four others to whether the legislator will vote as desired by their constituents or "compromise", "bargain", "pool", "sell" or "trade" their vote.
Change.org, on the other hand, has been known to exert enough pressure on various parties so as to get the exact changes that were desired. When that happens, the individual's participation was part of the actual leverage for change.
Definitely not the same at all. The political system is almost completely compromised at levels inaccessible to voters. It does not function as advertised.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
One of the things the EFF wants changed is that the developer agreement prohibits breaking DRM. Now without DRM most app developers won't even be able to make the pittance they make now.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You must have some weird, non-standard definition of "first." The EFF has had lots of petitions for lots of things for years now. The petition in question was just the first one since releasing the app.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Thank you, I wondered if anyone else would have caught that.
5 years later, Jobs has been dead for over two years, Tim Cook is at the helm, there are open-source apps, and the developer agreement has changed a lot. The "imminent launch of the iPad" has been replaced by "Tablet Sales Growth Plummets In 2014" and we still don't see an EFF app.
I haven't been too worried about it though.
I doubt even 0.001% of Apple users have ever read the EULA and those that have probably 0.01% of those that have actually understand what is actually being restricted. You will never get the public to care about EULAs. They know they just click ACCEPT and it goes away.
if they wont allow "breaking" of DRM, they need to allow devs more access to the device. its really that simple
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Considering how most OEM versions of Windows come loaded with questionable "trial" versions... how did it work out for you?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If they had any principles they wouldnt be using an apple device.
Not always for example my father has to have a iPhone because the vendor that provides the automation platform his business depends on only releases their app for remote manegment on iOS and WIndows phone with an Android one in development supposedly for the last 4 years or so. So he had choice between a Windows phone 7 and iPhone. Neither are good options, so he picked the less shitty of the two.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
It doesn't just apply to the EFF app though does it...
The EFF just happens to be the one telling you about it, but it applies to all apps, and that's really what you should be focused on, not the EFF.
Oh look there's something shiny on the floor....
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Engrish prz
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
if they wont allow "breaking" of DRM, they need to allow devs more access to the device. its really that simple
The apps in their store didn't need "more access" to be developed. The clauses against reverse engineering are also the norm. Sometimes, if you want something, you (or someone else) has to pay for it.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
But kudos to you, you understood the real implications of what APPLE has done, this really isn't about the EFF.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
We need a +1 Woosh mod
he entire point of free apps is to hammer you with spam until you actually spend money. There's no getting away from that shit, so don't assume consumers are somehow upset.
Maybe in Apple's world, but in the rest of the world this isn't true. While most "free" apps are spammy or coercive, there are tons that are not. They're just excellent apps, provided at no cost, including no advertising, in-app purchases, or data mining. I've written many such applications myself over the decades, and continue to do so.
I'm not sure what comment spam is more annoying: this, the GNAA, or Bennett Haselton.
So what? People who develop for the iPhone already knew this, went into it with open eyes, and if they're not happy, they can switch to something else. Personally, I don't have much use for the EFF because they take the position of zealots, and as we saw with the 12 dead yesterday, zealotry is for dummies. Open is going to have to continue to coexist with closed, and no amount of hand-wringing is going to change that.
For those who care about this, why are they worried about what's happening in someone else's walled garden? And for those who don't, well, they don't.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
My mom is NEVER going to alter those settings or go outside the official app store. Neither do my in-laws.
The clueless old folks might not. The clueless kids certainly will.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why EFF wanted to develop even an Android app. If they wanted to "make it easier for people to take action on digital rights issues using their phone", why not write an HTML5 website? Is there some performance issue that would outweigh the simplicity of a single codebase and the assurance that as soon as they updated the site it would be up to date for all users?
Sorry, I forgot there are ads on the Web; I use Lynx.
The clueless old folks might not
They are the ones that need protection.
The clueless kids certainly will.
They're not clueless, just unwise. There is a big difference. They aren't fooled into thinking the chinese app store with pirated games is in any way official; they aren't accidently unchecking the 'allow software from untrusted sources' button because they got confused... they know what they are doing and what they want.
They don't need protection.
he entire point of free apps is to hammer you with spam until you actually spend money. There's no getting away from that shit, so don't assume consumers are somehow upset.
Maybe in Apple's world, but in the rest of the world this isn't true. While most "free" apps are spammy or coercive, there are tons that are not. They're just excellent apps, provided at no cost, including no advertising, in-app purchases, or data mining. I've written many such applications myself over the decades, and continue to do so.
First, I want to thank you for your selfless contributions to the app pool in order to provide a truly free app. That effort is appreciated.
It's just rather unfortunate that your work, along with "tons" of others, are buried under the other million apps that are busy winning the popularity contest by peddling spam..
They're not clueless, just unwise. There is a big difference.
There is NO DIFFERENCE in terms of millions of people being easily infected in ways that are not really possibly with iOS devices.
You also blow over the whole app permission debacle on Android, where you have to agree to all permissions up front - even without outright malware that leaves just about everyone open to tons of spyware that happily lives in the official Google store.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They're not clueless, just unwise.
Take a look around sometime.
And certainly they do need protection. (Where clueless kids using smartphones is a wide category from about 5 to about 35.) Insightful knowledge of the dangers of the internet does not come along at the same time as the ability to switch on other app-stores.
All of the terms cited are completely irrelevant to this particular app. They are general terms that all app developers have to adhere to. NONE of them would prevent the publication of their app. It's just that they don't like the terms. And, so, they don't have to accept them.
[quote]Contract restrictions aside, the final barrier was knowing that we’d be required to include a form of Digital Rights Management (DRM).[/quote]
That's not true. There's no DRM that authors are "required to include". The platform includes it for you. Yes, it is Apple's store, apps are sold on Apple's terms.
[quote]DRM means that Apple is putting technical restrictions on what you can and can’t do with your app. When we create tools for EFF, we want them to be broadly available to others to use, adapt, and customize. That’s why we work to make our technical projects based on free software, and avoid DRM.[/quote]
No, it doesn't. It means users can copy it willy-nilly. They have to download it from the store. They can't alter it. That is the agreement users have with Apple.
You want users to be able to modify the application? Fine. Put it in the public domain or publish under and open-source license. Publish the source code. Anybody who wishes to become an Apple developer can copy it, modify it, and publish it as their own. Or simply install and use on their own devices.
Basically their "app" could be easily handed as a mobile ready website?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Further to the point, the March 1, 2010 Registered Apple Developer Agreement is available publicly online and indexed by Google. Most of the points the EFF took issue with were removed due to public outcry years ago. Why is the EFF still referring to an earlier agreement that is no longer applicable?
Did you look on the EFF page about this app?
Here ya go.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
"nothing to do with Android and everything to do with the agreements between cellphone manufacturers and carriers."
Apple has agreements with carriers and none of them come with crapware as far as I know.
How is it that Android's failure to protect the users from phone carriers where Apple *does* protect the user from carriers from installing crapwares a positive?
It isn't quite black and white.
With Apple, you may have limits to ADDITIONS you can make for installing, but with the typical Android experience you lose the right to SUBTRACT apps on your device. And those unwanted crapware apps the phone carrier forces on you --- we live in age of "tracking and invasion of privacy" and "you are the product" --- I don't know what they are doing (hopefully nothing, but I have no freedom to remove them and have to hope.).
If you see my point.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
;-0
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Oh no - another app I won't be using. Why an app and not just a mobile web page?
Obviously this is just grandstanding
Honestly - will anyone notice that this app isn't available? Who is the target customer - and how many people will be searching the app store wondering "now where is that darn EFF app I've heard so much about?"
Of course if the app really is popular then customer demand will drive them to swallow their moral values and succumb to the license agreement.
While most "free" apps are spammy or coercive, there are tons that are not. They're just excellent apps, provided at no cost, including no advertising, in-app purchases, or data mining. I've written many such applications myself over the decades, and continue to do so.
How do you recover the costs (Mac hardware, iOS devices for testing, iOS Developer Program fees, and the opportunity cost of your time) of doing so? Because if others understand how you do so, maybe they can learn to do so.
Take a look around sometime.
So what do you suggest?
I already suggested it be a $1 app to add the UI for the feature to switch. That'll keep out the young kids. And make darn sure nobody just does it without thinking. Putting even a small price on something stops the VAST majority of people from getting it.
Insightful knowledge of the dangers of the internet does not come along at the same time as the ability to switch on other app-stores.
And being able to cause yourself serious personal injury and damage to your vehicle's engine doesn't come along at the same time as the ability to open the hood or wield a wrench... do you also advocate vehicles have dealer locked hoods that only they can open?
Meanwhile, these 35 year old kids are using the PC or Mac computers without such restrictions. Some of them are getting infected, that's how they learn. You aren't calling for lock down there too are you? Why not? Why is the phone or tablet sacrosanct?
You know, Apple has given out over $25B (billion, with a B) to its iOS developers since its inception. You don't have to like all the terms, frankly, but in the real world being too altruistic isn't going to do you any favors. Apple puts a premium on the security of its devices and has to continuously juggle the sensibilities of dozens large companies.
History is littered with open-source programmers with so little business sense they wind up living in a RV park their whole lives and retiring with zero savings. Or worse.
-Matt
Right now, the app is an alert system designed to tell you when we have new campaigns
Okay, let me get this straight - the EFF has their knickers in a twist because they don't like Apple's terms for their walled garden. I'm sure Apple users are really upset that they can't download an app whose purpose is to spam them.
Trying to complain about spam when it comes to free apps is kind of like complaining about the smell of tomatoes in a ketchup factory.
The entire point of free apps is to hammer you with spam until you actually spend money. There's no getting away from that shit, so don't assume consumers are somehow upset. They agree to be spammed every single day with the other 73 apps installed.
Assuming what the OP is implying is true, that EFF's only underlying to purpose is to spam you.
And yes, it's certainly true that users couldn't care less about having an app from the EFF, I personally wouldn't care for it. And yes, while it's certainly true that this agreement mostly applies to app developers, and not users, and that only developers have to agree to it, not users.
This is actually what the EFF is complaining about (the emphasis in bold is mine):
Ban on Public Statements: Section 10.4 prohibits developers from making any "public statements" about the terms of the Agreement. This is particularly strange, since the Agreement itself is not "Apple Confidential Information" as defined in Section 10.1. So the terms are not confidential, but developers are contractually forbidden from speaking "publicly" about them.
Ban on Reverse Engineering: Section 2.6 prohibits any reverse engineering (including the kinds of reverse engineering for interoperability that courts have recognized as a fair use under copyright law), as well as anything that would "enable others" to reverse engineer, the software development kit (SDK) or iPhone OS.
App Store Only: Section 7.3 makes it clear that any applications developed using Apple's SDK may only be publicly distributed through the App Store, and that Apple can reject an app for any reason, even if it meets all the formal requirements disclosed by Apple. So if you use the SDK and your app is rejected by Apple, you're prohibited from distributing it through competing app stores like Cydia.
No Tinkering with Any Apple Products: Section 3.2(e) is the "ban on jailbreaking" provision that appears to prohibit developers from tinkering with any Apple software or technology, not just the iPhone, or "enabling others to do so."
Apple Owns Your Security: Section 6.1 explains that Apple has to approve any bug fixes or security releases. If Apple does not approve such updates very quickly, this requirement could put many people in jeopardy.
Kill Your App Any Time: Section 8 makes it clear that Apple can "revoke the digital certificate of any of Your Applications at any time." Steve Jobs once confirmed that Apple can remotely disable apps, even after they have been installed by users. This contract provision would appear to allow that.
So I don't know about you guys, but as an app developer, this agreement would scare the hell out of me.
Thankfully, I'm not an iOS developer, so my livelihood does not depend on the personal approval and whims of Apple, but then again, I'm not an iOS developer, that also means that if there were any serious issues with Apple's OS or SDKs, or any good tools that iOS developers needed, my opinion wouldn't be worth much more than just a random fart in the wind.
And by the way, before bashing Apple too much about this. There is another large 500 lbs gorilla that has an equally bad agreement for Android app developers. And before anyone blames EFF for missing it. I would say it's very easy to miss since no one actually publishes their app to their particular app store (everyone just publishes t
in fact it's MORE of a statement because it goes against the clause that developers "cannot talk about the developer contract".
That clause was removed years ago. The EFF quoted a very old version of the agreement.
E pluribus unum
I was wondering about that, I thought it had been removed but I thought perhaps there was a new version.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While most "free" apps are spammy or coercive, there are tons that are not.... I've written many such applications myself over the decades, and continue to do so.
Exactly. As hobbies go, it is rather cheap compared to other common first-world hobbies. I would estimate between hardware and developer membership fees it is at most $1000 per year. Contrast with annual costs of about:
Fishing on your motorboat: $1000 in fuel and $3000 in repairs and depreciation
Snowboarding: $500 in lift tickets, $1500 in travel/food/lodging
Interest Clubs (SCA, Poodle Fanciers, whatever): $300 in suppliesand $1500 in travel/food/lodging
I agree with others that there is a problem finding well-made apps that come from dilettantes, but from the creator's point of view the expenses are rather small.
Making a business out of writing apps, well, that's another issue entirely. There's a reason I've never seriously considered it!
I already suggested it be a $1 app to add the UI for the feature to switch. That'll keep out the young kids.
Nice idea.
do you also advocate vehicles have dealer locked hoods that only they can open?
I know car metaphors are de-rigour here, but that's really not a good metaphor. This is approvals of add-ons and consumables, not repairs. And there are a few other examples. Games consoles, printers, razors.
The bizarre thing is it's framed as if it's imposed on consumers. But of course it isn't. It's entirely opt-in. There's a large number of people that are willing to pay a bit extra for the safety and quality that the iPhone platform gives. And one of the important mechanisms by which that safety and quality is delivered is by controlling what can be installed.
People aren't being MADE to be safer. They CHOOSE to pay extra for the service of being made safer.
Meanwhile, these 35 year old kids are using the PC or Mac computers without such restrictions.... Why is the phone or tablet sacrosanct?
If a phone ever needs the kind of maintenance a PC or Mac needs it's a failed phone. Consumers these days have got something that for most of their casual uses is better than a PC. That's progress.
Sure, there's a need for an industrial grade computing device too, for a start to develop the apps on the more casual devices.
But to make modern consumer computing devices with as troublesome a set of ideas as a PC would be silly. Consumers need reliable appliances, not unreliable boxes of bits that continually degrade and require maintenance.
Nice idea.
I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not. :) But I sincerely think it would be a somewhat reasonable solution.
I know car metaphors are de-rigour here, but that's really not a good metaphor. This is approvals of add-ons and consumables, not repairs. And there are a few other examples. Games consoles, printers, razors.
I actually think games consoles, by virtue of their transformation to using software/online stores deserve to face the same criticism as iOS here.
People aren't being MADE to be safer. They CHOOSE to pay extra for the service of being made safer.
If that were really true the phone could ship with the option to install apps from 3rd party app stores, and people would pay $1 for an app to remove that feature in droves.
Yet that is not your argument, your argument is quixotically that people who are "CHOOSING" to pay extra for the service of being made safer would be unable to stop themselves from pushing the "turn the safety you paid extra for off" button even if it was hidden somewhere deep in the settings and you had to perform some arcane ritual to get to it.
That's absurd. If they genuinely were choosing safety, they could and would simply leave the safety turned on. Sufficient barriers to prevent accidentally pushing it are warranted, but there is no justification for the setting just not being allowed to exist at all.
Given the interest in jailbreaking etc, its clear that a LOT of people are buying devices who have not drunk the walled-garden koolaid.
If a phone ever needs the kind of maintenance a PC or Mac needs it's a failed phone.
And yet Android is not a failed phone.
Consumers these days have got something that for most of their casual uses is better than a PC. That's progress.
At risk of going off on a tangent, I'd say that's because consumers have transitioned from using computing devices to create things to using them to passively consume things. That is not progress. :(
But to make modern consumer computing devices with as troublesome a set of ideas as a PC would be silly
And yet Android is not 'silly'. Nor are some of the other linux based mobile OSes that are starting to appear from ubuntu and firefox etc.
Are you seriously comparing "zealots" defending your rights to terrorists who kill people in cold blood for drawing a cartoon??
Sheesh. Get some fucking perspective!
Sheesh, why don't you get some perspective? The EFF isn't defending my right or your rights with this. They're attention-starved hand-wringing over what is a non-issue because they in their zealotry are blind to the larger issue, which is that in a free society with copyright law, people are allowed to set restrictions on how their work is used, to keep it closed-source, to license it how they want. It's how they pay the bills. Zealots like the foot-cheese-eating RMS would deprive people of all their rights, as well as the fruit of their labors.
Apple developers had the choice to develop for a "more open" platform if they didn't like the terms. They chose not to, and the EFF wants the deal changed retroactively via a petition using an Android app? Like most zealots, they can't see beyond their own agenda.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
nah. that's what I meant when I said "wouldn't put this app in that category".
that category is for things like showbox.
I think the article should have listed the 4 issues the EFF had with Apple:
1) Ban iOS developers from ever speaking about the developer agreement.
2) Ban iOS developers from jailbreaking an Apple device, or even enabling others to do so.
3) Require Apple to approve every security updates. They were concerned that unaddressed security bugs could linger and leave users at risk.
4) Wrap every app in the Apple store with "unnecessary: DRM, which limits what users can do with their apps.
____
Now my editorial.
(1) and (2) they have a good point.
4) Is the virus problem. I agree with Apple here requiring an OSX device and an SDK is not too onerous for a controlled ecosystem. End users like the controlled ecosystem. This way it prevents developers from abusing the system (malware, virus, spyware...) while allowing for most applications to get through. It also enables better security practices. So I disagree on (4). People who want to install their own software can but the bar is high enough that developers aren't going to pressure people into installing software that hasn't gone through Apple's approval.
3) Same reason as (4). Apple loses control if they don't approve all updates. Apple customers trust Apple more than developers.
"Artificial scarcity" my arse. Much of that stuff would never have been produced in the first place if the authors didn't have a hope of making money off it.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Just because RMS says it doesn't make it true. The GPL is only "compatible with selling your work" for a one-time sale, because after that, they buyer can just give it away for free. That's the difference between the freetard view and reality.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.