So you pay $272, and save how many hours of your own time that you would've spent opening, diagnosing, and repairing the defective device? Be honest with your time estimate, too - we all know that engineers love to say "that'll take me an hour," and then spend 3 weeks on that "one hour" bit of work.
Let's assume a drum bearing kit for a washing machine costs about $25 - looking online, that seems like it might be reasonable-to-low depending on your model of washing machine. Now figure it'll take you four hours to open the machine up, diagnose the problem, locate & purchase the replacement part, and repair the machine.
Given those estimates, if an hour of your time is worth more than $60 to you, then it's more efficient to pay someone else to do the repair, unless you get some sort of deep emotional fulfillment out of repairing your washing machine. I suspect those hours might be better spent with your wife, or pursuing other activities that WOULD give you a sense of fulfillment, rather than a nagging sense of being badgered by your wife to fix something so she can get laundry done.
But what if I'm a NASCAR driver and perfectly capable of handling my car at 200 MPH? Why should I be restricted just because a bunch of old lady drivers can't be bothered to learn how to go more than 155?
Let's be honest - you're dismissing the car argument because the cap is sufficiently high that you don't have the requisite expertise to operate it safely - placing you in the majority of car users. You don't see the arbitrary restriction on the iphone the same way because you're one of the few people who does have the expertise to not brick their phone.
You can argue that the scale and safety implications are different, but what it boils down to is that you don't feel there should be any arbitrary restrictions on you in an area where you are an expert. And while that's understandable, the comparison is absolutely valid. Many consumer products have arbitrary limitations and restrictions placed on them in the interests of simplifying the devices for "the majority" of users. Unfortunately, your expertise with computers places you outside "the majority" of iPhone users, and so some of those restrictions are bound to chafe.
Because Apple's business model is built on simplicity - they opt for defaults that are satisfactory for "most" people, and unfortunately, people who want unlocked "do whatever I want with it" phones are not in the majority.
It sucks for the people who have the technical know-how not to brick their phones, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody who has ever looked at Apple's products.
You don't understand. When Apple does it, it's evidence of sinister conspiracies. When scrappy Firefox does it, it's a feature that protects the consumer.
And besides that - STEVE JOBS.
So I believe I've conclusively proven that Apple is doing this for nefarious purposes.
Funny thing I noticed - the linked article is so poorly laid out that I didn't even *realize* there were 2 additional pages to it until someone else mentioned "the second page." Safari Reader would have maybe pulled those pages down for me to view the content.
If the web is open, doesn't that imply that the person reading the content should be able to view it however they want in their own browser on their own client?
Or are you saying that "openness" is achieved by the web site being able to force you to view particular content in a particular way, with no options as for how, when, and where the content is displayed?
This is an optional mode. It must be enabled by the reader on a per-page basis. It loads the full page first (so ads are still displayed), and then the reader can choose to turn on the reader view... how exactly is anybody being forced to do anything, and how exactly is the content less "open" as a result of users having another choice for displaying the page they're reading?
Should I not be able to scale up font sizes if I have bad eyesight? Should the blind not be able to "display" pages with a text-to-speech program? Where exactly do you draw the line for openness?
You forgot to mention exactly how Safari goes from being a bit player in the browser market to being some sort of inescapable juggernaut which has the power to "force" these changes and this model on anybody.
The argument they are using seems to be that "since MDY induced these players to violate their contracts & use Glider, we had to ban those players, thus reducing our revenues from those players."
The argument seems to hinge on the premise that the players *would not* have violated their contracts if MDY had not induced them to.
I'm not a lawyer, but this would make sense in the context of a civil claim - you can't just say "I don't like what they're doing. Make them give me money." You have to outline exactly how MDY has done something that is against the law which has caused you harm, and then claim that those activities have damaged you & thus MDY needs to compensate you for those damages.
I think what you're looking for there is called journalism.
Unfortunately, most journalistic outlets (on both sides of the conservative / liberal spectrum) are too busy pushing their own editorial biases to produce fair & factual reporting, and most people are too busy reading about Lindsay Lohan's scandalous cleavage-baring shirt to give a fuck.
You could publish every minute of every government meeting ever, and they would be lucky to get a handful of views, until long after the time when it'd be considered timely, and you'll only hear about it then when somebody digs up some sort of bombshell and posts it to Digg.
You can make government as transparent as possible, and it still won't matter a bit until people start paying attention and taking an interest in the information being made available to them. Until then, it's just more background noise.
Max level in WoW is not achievable in "mere days", unless you do nothing but play WoW for 20 hours a day straight. I have 5 max-level characters, and have been playing for about 3 years now. Rough numbers, all 5 of those characters took 8-16 days/played to hit max level. The amount of time reported is the hours spent logged in, playing the game. 8 days = 192 hours. 2 hours a day daily puts max level at just over 3 months of "real world time" to hit max level. 6 months for the longer case of 16 days/played.
If you are focused like a madman on leveling, yes, you can do it in a few days of non-stop grinding. I don't know too many people who have (even with assistance & heirloom items) done it in less than 4 days/played - 96 hours. I actually enjoy playing new classes, and many friends I play with always remark on how quickly I manage to level... I'm guessing that my 8-16 days of/played time is probably a bit faster than the "average" too, given that.
Your judgements are - by your own admission - based on anecdotal evidence, and as such are completely insufficient to draw the sweeping generalization you did in your original post.
I had to comment because I found the irony of your original statement, followed by your sig, to be too delicious to not point out.
Perhaps you meant to be more accurate in painting with that broad brush, and should have said: "Some cops are bad, and some cops are good?"
I didn't fault Gizmodo for publishing the piece about the phone. But I lost any stomach for their "reporting" when they outed the guy who lost the phone, and I was disgusted by the flip tone of their email to Apple Legal when they returned the phone.
Now we come to find out that Mr. Lam misreported HIS OWN EMAIL to Apple Legal by editing what they reportedly said not once, but now apparently - twice. The original post he put up had the crack about "I don't think this guy likes anything as much as Apple, and maybe beer." That was later edited to strike the "and maybe beer" reference from the Gizmodo website.
Reading these recently-published documents, it's clear that their original post was an edited version of what was said, as well - the original email, as reported in the legal documents, has the beer quip, and follows it with, "Maybe spankings."
Given this evidence that Gizmodo clearly alters the actual transcript of written communication, why would you ever trust a single other word they've written? They're claiming journalistic protections while behaving like grade schoolers. This whole mess has guaranteed that I won't read gizmodo ever again.
Most people go into police work because they get a kick from the artificial power and authority and because they don't have any real power or authority.
Followed by this signature:
I like your black & white world; mine has too many shades of gray.
Is very rich irony. But okay, I'll play too:
Most people who hate cops do so because they are immoral people who frequently break the law knowingly, and resent the fact that police make them nervous.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
But yeah, I can see how you'd feel that the offer to provide is strictly limited to paragraph 6c as you stated.
The "occasional and noncommercial" clause in 6c is for people who, say, download Apple's versions under 6b, make some modifications, and then distribute their changes to other Mac OS X users for free - noncommercial, and occasional - not as an actual commercial software product.
Stop pseudo-lawyering. The ownership transfer may be implied to occur when a particular event has occurred, such as cleared transfer of funds.
It's not pseudo lawyering, it's factual representation of a typical P&S contract for a home. Very little is "implied" in that contract - if you expect to be able to transfer the funds by Date X, it is put in the contract, along with a clause saying, in essence "If you don't do this by Date X, seller/purchaser reserves the right to declare this contract void," along with specific statement of what happens to any deposits, etc. that have been paid.
The terms of the GPL say nothing about current availability; In fact, they state that the binaries must be accompanied by a written offer to provide the corresponding source. In other words, at release, the offer you are making is "to provide" - at some point in the future - corresponding source when the request is made by a user. The user's request is the triggering event in the GPL, not the release of code.
As for the FSF - why would they need to take it to court to "require specific performance" if it's already spelled out in clear detail in the GPL that Apple must release the code within a certain specific time frame? If the FSF doesn't think that Apple is in violation of the terms of the GPL by taking a few weeks to get all the code posted, doesn't that suggest something to you?
In case you're being as deliberately obtuse as I've come to expect, it suggests that the people with what you claim is "a good argument for material breach," who also happen to own the software copyrights and the GPL, don't feel that Apple is in violation of the GPL. That suggests to me that you're reading your own interpretation into the GPL, and what you feel are "reasonable" timeframes are in fact not "reasonable."
What you've failed to do is cite any part of the GPL which specifies timelines or other date / time requirements for delivery of the code.
Of course, your housing example shows just how much of a reach you're making by trying to claim the GPL contains terms which it clearly does not contain. A proper P&S contract for a home will specify quite clearly the terms of sale, including dates for move-in and transfer / acquisition of title. Those things are built right into the contract - complete with consequences and/or opt-out clauses for failure to deliver on time - unless you have a complete incompetent for a lawyer. The GPL contains no such provisions, leaving the interpretation of "when" the code must be delivered as a matter for 2 parties (or a court) to determine.
If you don't like Apple's delay, take them to court and get a ruling against them if you think you can. Good luck getting a court to enforce a clause of a license which only exists in your imaginary interpretation of the GPL.
One more time, I'll ask you to please provide for me the clause of the GPL which states one of the following:
1) The source code must be provided within 'X' days of the release of object code.
2) The source code must be available on your download server the day you release your object code.
Because from where I'm sitting, you're the one applying your own special interpretation of the GPL to the situation because Apple aren't as responsive as you might wish. The GPL *does* simply say you must provide the code - it does not say a single thing about what the timeframe is for the code to be provided to users of the object code.
If you can't provide a reference to that clause (which you can't, because it doesn't exist, and we both know it), then you have to admit that your demand for simultaneous release of object & code are your own personal preference, and not an obligation under the terms of the GPL. And as such, you can hold your breath and stomp your feet all you want, but none of that obligates Apple to satisfy your whims.
You are splitting semantic hairs in an attempt to lawyer Apple into some sort of GPL violation. They are not violating the GPL, because the GPL simply says "you must make the offer to supply source code," and they have done that.
If it takes them time to get the source code uploaded onto the server and made available, the GPL has nothing to say on the matter of how quickly that has to happen - just that it must.
And with people with your attitude on the open source side, FOSS advocates will still wonder why businesses are wary of investing significant efforts into open source work, and "contributing back to the community." I'd say it's pretty evident here that so long as Apple doesn't adhere to your extra & imaginary GPL clauses, it's guilty of violations.
All of which is relevant to my point... how, exactly?
I've yet to see MSFT given credit for doing anything well here on Slashdot, but then people profess shock and dismay when they appear to not have fully embraced the open source ethos and done so better than "a kid in his basement" could have.
Your only objection is that they don't post things up there as quickly as you might like; Unfortunately, the GPL says nothing about how quickly the source must be made available, only that it must be made available.
Any reasonable person understands that nontrivial tasks take time to accomplish. Their posting of source code within several weeks of the binary release is a nontrivial task, and therefore... takes time. You can pout all you like about how slow they are, but the fact of the matter is that they have not violated the terms of the GPL, because the GPL says nothing about how quickly they're obligated to give you access to the source code, or send you a copy.
And the moment you have distributed, you have an obligation under the licence.
Yes, you have an obligation under the license to provide any user who requests it with a copy of the source code.
The GPL only dictates that they must provide it to users who request it - not that they must provide it within moments or hours of the demand being made. Good luck arguing before any reasonable court that Apple saying, "Sure, we'll get that to you in 3 weeks," is somehow a violation of the terms of the GPL.
...licence non-compliance. Apple are welcome to write their own toolchain if they don't like the GPL. Also, I know the first couple of service packs of a new Apple major OS release are awful, but I'm fairly sure they've finalised the source they're using before they build the ISO.
I'd like for you to cite the exact terms of the GPL that Apple is violating by providing you with the source code a few weeks after they release the binary. I see nothing in the GPL stating that you must release things in a certain time frame, only that they must make the source code available.
Stomping your feet and screaming, "I want it and I want it now!" does not place a binding legal obligation on Apple to provide you with source code the day the binary is released, or within 3 days of the binary being released, simply that they "must provide" a copy to you, and they are doing so, though perhaps not as quickly as you would prefer.
If I have a copy of the a GPL binary, the distributor has a legal obligation to provide me the source.
Yes, they do. However, the GPL does not say anywhere that they must provide you the source on the day they release the binary, and in fact specifies no "acceptable timeframe" for doing so.
You may not be aware of this, but in the lead-up to a commercial software release, there is often a huge scramble to get everything finalized. In that scramble, "creating a tarball of the source code" is simply not that pressing a need, considering the GPL requires you to provide a copy of source to "users of the binary," and by definition, if you haven't yet released your software, there can be no users of that binary.
Your wish for a speedier release is not a legal obligation. You can brand me a clueless apple fanboy if you want, but the simple fact is, Apple is in no way violating its obligations by taking "a few weeks" to gather the source code together and release it to the public - to imply that this desire of yours is in some way a binding obligation on apple (or anybody else) is simply wrong.
I wish there was a "-1, Uncomfortably Accurate" mod. I'd still get down-modded for violating group think, but at least the reason for it would be more accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
So you pay $272, and save how many hours of your own time that you would've spent opening, diagnosing, and repairing the defective device? Be honest with your time estimate, too - we all know that engineers love to say "that'll take me an hour," and then spend 3 weeks on that "one hour" bit of work.
Let's assume a drum bearing kit for a washing machine costs about $25 - looking online, that seems like it might be reasonable-to-low depending on your model of washing machine. Now figure it'll take you four hours to open the machine up, diagnose the problem, locate & purchase the replacement part, and repair the machine.
Given those estimates, if an hour of your time is worth more than $60 to you, then it's more efficient to pay someone else to do the repair, unless you get some sort of deep emotional fulfillment out of repairing your washing machine. I suspect those hours might be better spent with your wife, or pursuing other activities that WOULD give you a sense of fulfillment, rather than a nagging sense of being badgered by your wife to fix something so she can get laundry done.
But what if I'm a NASCAR driver and perfectly capable of handling my car at 200 MPH? Why should I be restricted just because a bunch of old lady drivers can't be bothered to learn how to go more than 155?
Let's be honest - you're dismissing the car argument because the cap is sufficiently high that you don't have the requisite expertise to operate it safely - placing you in the majority of car users. You don't see the arbitrary restriction on the iphone the same way because you're one of the few people who does have the expertise to not brick their phone.
You can argue that the scale and safety implications are different, but what it boils down to is that you don't feel there should be any arbitrary restrictions on you in an area where you are an expert. And while that's understandable, the comparison is absolutely valid. Many consumer products have arbitrary limitations and restrictions placed on them in the interests of simplifying the devices for "the majority" of users. Unfortunately, your expertise with computers places you outside "the majority" of iPhone users, and so some of those restrictions are bound to chafe.
Because Apple's business model is built on simplicity - they opt for defaults that are satisfactory for "most" people, and unfortunately, people who want unlocked "do whatever I want with it" phones are not in the majority. It sucks for the people who have the technical know-how not to brick their phones, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody who has ever looked at Apple's products.
You don't understand. When Apple does it, it's evidence of sinister conspiracies. When scrappy Firefox does it, it's a feature that protects the consumer.
And besides that - STEVE JOBS.
So I believe I've conclusively proven that Apple is doing this for nefarious purposes.
Funny thing I noticed - the linked article is so poorly laid out that I didn't even *realize* there were 2 additional pages to it until someone else mentioned "the second page." Safari Reader would have maybe pulled those pages down for me to view the content.
If the web is open, doesn't that imply that the person reading the content should be able to view it however they want in their own browser on their own client?
Or are you saying that "openness" is achieved by the web site being able to force you to view particular content in a particular way, with no options as for how, when, and where the content is displayed?
This is an optional mode. It must be enabled by the reader on a per-page basis. It loads the full page first (so ads are still displayed), and then the reader can choose to turn on the reader view... how exactly is anybody being forced to do anything, and how exactly is the content less "open" as a result of users having another choice for displaying the page they're reading? Should I not be able to scale up font sizes if I have bad eyesight? Should the blind not be able to "display" pages with a text-to-speech program? Where exactly do you draw the line for openness?
You forgot to mention exactly how Safari goes from being a bit player in the browser market to being some sort of inescapable juggernaut which has the power to "force" these changes and this model on anybody.
Yeah... so... um....
The argument they are using seems to be that "since MDY induced these players to violate their contracts & use Glider, we had to ban those players, thus reducing our revenues from those players."
The argument seems to hinge on the premise that the players *would not* have violated their contracts if MDY had not induced them to.
I'm not a lawyer, but this would make sense in the context of a civil claim - you can't just say "I don't like what they're doing. Make them give me money." You have to outline exactly how MDY has done something that is against the law which has caused you harm, and then claim that those activities have damaged you & thus MDY needs to compensate you for those damages.
Could you explain what this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_purpose_doctrine
Has to do with any of the requirements that your car receive periodic safety inspections, be registered, properly licensed, etc?
Because I'm just not seeing how your argument speaks to the Family Purpose Doctrine (also known as the Family Car Doctrine).
I think what you're looking for there is called journalism.
Unfortunately, most journalistic outlets (on both sides of the conservative / liberal spectrum) are too busy pushing their own editorial biases to produce fair & factual reporting, and most people are too busy reading about Lindsay Lohan's scandalous cleavage-baring shirt to give a fuck.
You could publish every minute of every government meeting ever, and they would be lucky to get a handful of views, until long after the time when it'd be considered timely, and you'll only hear about it then when somebody digs up some sort of bombshell and posts it to Digg.
You can make government as transparent as possible, and it still won't matter a bit until people start paying attention and taking an interest in the information being made available to them. Until then, it's just more background noise.
Max level in WoW is not achievable in "mere days", unless you do nothing but play WoW for 20 hours a day straight. I have 5 max-level characters, and have been playing for about 3 years now. Rough numbers, all 5 of those characters took 8-16 days /played to hit max level. The amount of time reported is the hours spent logged in, playing the game. 8 days = 192 hours. 2 hours a day daily puts max level at just over 3 months of "real world time" to hit max level. 6 months for the longer case of 16 days /played.
/played - 96 hours. I actually enjoy playing new classes, and many friends I play with always remark on how quickly I manage to level... I'm guessing that my 8-16 days of /played time is probably a bit faster than the "average" too, given that.
If you are focused like a madman on leveling, yes, you can do it in a few days of non-stop grinding. I don't know too many people who have (even with assistance & heirloom items) done it in less than 4 days
Are you dumb, or just trolling poorly?
Your judgements are - by your own admission - based on anecdotal evidence, and as such are completely insufficient to draw the sweeping generalization you did in your original post.
I had to comment because I found the irony of your original statement, followed by your sig, to be too delicious to not point out.
Perhaps you meant to be more accurate in painting with that broad brush, and should have said: "Some cops are bad, and some cops are good?"
I didn't fault Gizmodo for publishing the piece about the phone. But I lost any stomach for their "reporting" when they outed the guy who lost the phone, and I was disgusted by the flip tone of their email to Apple Legal when they returned the phone.
Now we come to find out that Mr. Lam misreported HIS OWN EMAIL to Apple Legal by editing what they reportedly said not once, but now apparently - twice. The original post he put up had the crack about "I don't think this guy likes anything as much as Apple, and maybe beer." That was later edited to strike the "and maybe beer" reference from the Gizmodo website.
Reading these recently-published documents, it's clear that their original post was an edited version of what was said, as well - the original email, as reported in the legal documents, has the beer quip, and follows it with, "Maybe spankings."
Given this evidence that Gizmodo clearly alters the actual transcript of written communication, why would you ever trust a single other word they've written? They're claiming journalistic protections while behaving like grade schoolers. This whole mess has guaranteed that I won't read gizmodo ever again.
Followed by this signature:
Is very rich irony. But okay, I'll play too:
Most people who hate cops do so because they are immoral people who frequently break the law knowingly, and resent the fact that police make them nervous.
See? I can generalize like an asshole too!
But yeah, I can see how you'd feel that the offer to provide is strictly limited to paragraph 6c as you stated.
The "occasional and noncommercial" clause in 6c is for people who, say, download Apple's versions under 6b, make some modifications, and then distribute their changes to other Mac OS X users for free - noncommercial, and occasional - not as an actual commercial software product.
It's not pseudo lawyering, it's factual representation of a typical P&S contract for a home. Very little is "implied" in that contract - if you expect to be able to transfer the funds by Date X, it is put in the contract, along with a clause saying, in essence "If you don't do this by Date X, seller/purchaser reserves the right to declare this contract void," along with specific statement of what happens to any deposits, etc. that have been paid.
The terms of the GPL say nothing about current availability; In fact, they state that the binaries must be accompanied by a written offer to provide the corresponding source. In other words, at release, the offer you are making is "to provide" - at some point in the future - corresponding source when the request is made by a user. The user's request is the triggering event in the GPL, not the release of code.
As for the FSF - why would they need to take it to court to "require specific performance" if it's already spelled out in clear detail in the GPL that Apple must release the code within a certain specific time frame? If the FSF doesn't think that Apple is in violation of the terms of the GPL by taking a few weeks to get all the code posted, doesn't that suggest something to you?
In case you're being as deliberately obtuse as I've come to expect, it suggests that the people with what you claim is "a good argument for material breach," who also happen to own the software copyrights and the GPL, don't feel that Apple is in violation of the GPL. That suggests to me that you're reading your own interpretation into the GPL, and what you feel are "reasonable" timeframes are in fact not "reasonable."
What you've failed to do is cite any part of the GPL which specifies timelines or other date / time requirements for delivery of the code.
Of course, your housing example shows just how much of a reach you're making by trying to claim the GPL contains terms which it clearly does not contain. A proper P&S contract for a home will specify quite clearly the terms of sale, including dates for move-in and transfer / acquisition of title. Those things are built right into the contract - complete with consequences and/or opt-out clauses for failure to deliver on time - unless you have a complete incompetent for a lawyer. The GPL contains no such provisions, leaving the interpretation of "when" the code must be delivered as a matter for 2 parties (or a court) to determine.
If you don't like Apple's delay, take them to court and get a ruling against them if you think you can. Good luck getting a court to enforce a clause of a license which only exists in your imaginary interpretation of the GPL.
One more time, I'll ask you to please provide for me the clause of the GPL which states one of the following:
1) The source code must be provided within 'X' days of the release of object code.
2) The source code must be available on your download server the day you release your object code.
Because from where I'm sitting, you're the one applying your own special interpretation of the GPL to the situation because Apple aren't as responsive as you might wish. The GPL *does* simply say you must provide the code - it does not say a single thing about what the timeframe is for the code to be provided to users of the object code.
If you can't provide a reference to that clause (which you can't, because it doesn't exist, and we both know it), then you have to admit that your demand for simultaneous release of object & code are your own personal preference, and not an obligation under the terms of the GPL. And as such, you can hold your breath and stomp your feet all you want, but none of that obligates Apple to satisfy your whims.
You are splitting semantic hairs in an attempt to lawyer Apple into some sort of GPL violation. They are not violating the GPL, because the GPL simply says "you must make the offer to supply source code," and they have done that.
If it takes them time to get the source code uploaded onto the server and made available, the GPL has nothing to say on the matter of how quickly that has to happen - just that it must.
And with people with your attitude on the open source side, FOSS advocates will still wonder why businesses are wary of investing significant efforts into open source work, and "contributing back to the community." I'd say it's pretty evident here that so long as Apple doesn't adhere to your extra & imaginary GPL clauses, it's guilty of violations.
All of which is relevant to my point... how, exactly?
I've yet to see MSFT given credit for doing anything well here on Slashdot, but then people profess shock and dismay when they appear to not have fully embraced the open source ethos and done so better than "a kid in his basement" could have.
Which part of item 2 does this server not cover?
Your only objection is that they don't post things up there as quickly as you might like; Unfortunately, the GPL says nothing about how quickly the source must be made available, only that it must be made available.
Any reasonable person understands that nontrivial tasks take time to accomplish. Their posting of source code within several weeks of the binary release is a nontrivial task, and therefore... takes time. You can pout all you like about how slow they are, but the fact of the matter is that they have not violated the terms of the GPL, because the GPL says nothing about how quickly they're obligated to give you access to the source code, or send you a copy.
Yes, you have an obligation under the license to provide any user who requests it with a copy of the source code.
The GPL only dictates that they must provide it to users who request it - not that they must provide it within moments or hours of the demand being made. Good luck arguing before any reasonable court that Apple saying, "Sure, we'll get that to you in 3 weeks," is somehow a violation of the terms of the GPL.
I'd like for you to cite the exact terms of the GPL that Apple is violating by providing you with the source code a few weeks after they release the binary. I see nothing in the GPL stating that you must release things in a certain time frame, only that they must make the source code available.
Stomping your feet and screaming, "I want it and I want it now!" does not place a binding legal obligation on Apple to provide you with source code the day the binary is released, or within 3 days of the binary being released, simply that they "must provide" a copy to you, and they are doing so, though perhaps not as quickly as you would prefer.
Yes, they do. However, the GPL does not say anywhere that they must provide you the source on the day they release the binary, and in fact specifies no "acceptable timeframe" for doing so.
You may not be aware of this, but in the lead-up to a commercial software release, there is often a huge scramble to get everything finalized. In that scramble, "creating a tarball of the source code" is simply not that pressing a need, considering the GPL requires you to provide a copy of source to "users of the binary," and by definition, if you haven't yet released your software, there can be no users of that binary.
Your wish for a speedier release is not a legal obligation. You can brand me a clueless apple fanboy if you want, but the simple fact is, Apple is in no way violating its obligations by taking "a few weeks" to gather the source code together and release it to the public - to imply that this desire of yours is in some way a binding obligation on apple (or anybody else) is simply wrong.
I wish there was a "-1, Uncomfortably Accurate" mod. I'd still get down-modded for violating group think, but at least the reason for it would be more accurate.