On Aug 17, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Christopher Forsythe wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Evan Schoenberg, M.D. <[email protected] > > wrote: > > On Aug 17, 2009, at 12:10 PM, Christopher Forsythe wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Evan Schoenberg, M.D. <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Bryan Henry wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure what you think the purpose of Apple giving pre- >>> release builds of their OS to developers before they're released >>> to consumers is if not for those developers to work on making sure >>> that their software is compatible with that new OS as soon after >>> release as possible. They might as well stop the Software Seeding >>> Program if all we're supposed to do with the builds is sit around >>> and twiddle our thumbs until its released. I don't think they give >>> them to us just so we can say "oooh, ahhh, I got this before >>> everyone else." >> >> Fully agreed. There is no reason not to discuss problems and fixes >> for SnowLeopard openly so long as the documentation and API shipped >> with the software are not revealed and screenshots of it (which >> prior experience on Mac rumors sites demonstrate clearly Apple has >> considered part of the NDA'd material) aren't posted. >> >> I agree. I'm just pretty sure that sending a log file from say >> instruments would be a likely source of revealing nda'd api calls. >> It's not unreasonable to assume this, especially since we have less >> than a month (or maybe a month) before the release is out the door >> anyhow. Why take a chance on a public mailing list about an open >> source project? >> >> I don't see problems discussing the fact that it's in fact broke >> and possible places to look, I'm just concerned with something >> being posted that gets someone sued. I'm not a lawyer, and as far >> as I know, nobody else here is, so it's worth a little bit of >> caution. If we don't speak up saying "hey, that might reveal >> something nda'd" and then someone posted something, and they got >> sued, I'd just feel awful for them, and we wouldn't be able to do >> anything to help them out. Sorry to sound like the "zomg don't post >> that!" police, but that's my concern. >> >> We have this problem every time a new release of os x comes out, >> and at the end of the day, if at any point someone got sued because >> they did something like post some debug output to a mailing list >> trying to get something fixed, it would be their fault, but we'd >> still just feel horrible about it. It's not worth the risk, and is >> worth reminding people that they are under NDA, at least for a >> short while longer. >> >> How is that unreasonable? >> > > > It's perfectly reasonable. I just think that pointing out that > there is an NDA and cautioning posters to be cognizant of it is the > line that's most appropriate for us to walk... but that so long as > posters are working within those confines, as they best understand > them, everything else is fair game. > > I'm fully with you in terms of avoiding liability... but I think > that after making it clear that we won't violate the NDA and that we > don't want others to do so, we've done our due diligence. > > > And that's all that I did, so meh.
That's why I responded as I did rather than out-of-band to find a consensus; we're in agreement. I believe Bryan's response was largely because he's already been party to a warning about the NDA... so the repeat-warning had undertones, potentially, of being more than just a warning, if you see what I mean. -Evan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
