Hi Steve, Apple has never released a public beta of iOS. To obtain a beta, you need to be a registered developer. It is true that during this cycle, it has, as has been reported by several tech publications, been possible to install the beta without the UDID of your device being registered with Apple. Even so, Apple does not distribute the software outside of the Apple Developer website. Therefore, if you got the build without registering as an Apple developer or having your UDID associated with an Apple Developer account, you've pirated the software.
When you register as an Apple Developer, you sign an NDA. Do I have it? Yes, actually, I do. And here are the relevant sections. Confidentiality. You agree that any Apple pre-release software and/or hardware (including related documentation and materials) provided to you as a Registered Apple Developer (“Pre-Release Materials”) and any information disclosed by Apple to you in connection with Apple Events or Paid Content (defined below) will be considered and referred to as “Apple Confidential Information”. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Apple Confidential Information will not include: (i) information that is generally and legitimately available to the public through no fault or breach of yours, (ii) information that is generally made available to the public by Apple, (iii) information that is independently developed by you without the use of any Apple Confidential Information, (iv) information that was rightfully obtained from a third party who had the right to transfer or disclose it to you without limitation, or (v) any third party software and/or documentation provided to you by Apple and accompanied by licensing terms that do not impose confidentiality obligations on the use or disclosure of such software and/or documentation. Nondisclosure and Nonuse of Apple Confidential Information. Unless otherwise expressly agreed or permitted in writing by Apple, you agree not to disclose, publish, or disseminate any Apple Confidential Information to anyone other than to other Registered Apple Developers who are employees and contractors working for the same entity as you and then only to the extent that Apple does not otherwise prohibit such disclosure. Except for your authorized purposes as a Registered Apple Developer or as otherwise expressly agreed or permitted by Apple in writing, you agree not to use Apple Confidential Information in any way, including, without limitation, for your own or any third party’s benefit without the prior written approval of an authorized representative of Apple in each instance. You further agree to take reasonable precautions to prevent any unauthorized use, disclosure, publication, or dissemination of Apple Confidential Information. You acknowledge that unauthorized disclosure or use of Apple Confidential Information could cause irreparable harm and significant injury to Apple that may be difficult to ascertain. Accordingly, you agree that Apple will have the right to seek immediate injunctive relief to enforce your obligations under this Agreement in addition to any other rights and remedies it may have. If you are required by law, regulation or pursuant to the valid binding order of a court of competent jurisdiction to disclose Apple Confidential Information, you may make such disclosure, but only if you have notified Apple before making such disclosure and have used commercially reasonable efforts to limit the disclosure and to seek confidential, protective treatment of such information. A disclosure pursuant to the previous sentence will not relieve you of your obligations to hold such information as Apple Confidential Information. So what this means is that we know some of the features that are in iOS7, because Apple showcased them at the World Wide Developer's Conference. It's their pre-release software, they can disclose what they want, and keep what they want under wraps. I'm not at all saying that the originator of this thread acted knowingly to breach a nondisclosure agreement, and I also acknowledge that on various technology blogs, people choose to pay lip service to the NDA at best, flagrantly breach it at worst. But just because some people do it, doesn't make it right. I can understand why the list owner, as an Apple developer, wants to keep material under nondisclosure off the list. I also think regular postings of the rules to avoid inadvertent breaches such as occurred in this instance would be helpful. But I'm afraid you're incorrect with your assertion that no NDA has been breached and that the software is in public beta. It simply is not. Jonathan Mosen Mosen Consulting Blindness technology eBooks, tutorials and training http://Mosen.org On 27/08/2013, at 7:21 AM, Steve Matzura <[email protected]> wrote: > You think? Do you have NDA? Can you quote verbatim the paragraphs > binding him to secrecy which you say he broke? If not, then please do > us all a favor and get your facts straight, then come back and bash me > to death if you like. I await your reply. > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:12:34 +0100, you wrote: > >> To me I think Sean was breaking the Nda. Apple has never released betas >> of iOs or Os X as public, and I can't see that changing. I actually am >> for this and wished other companies would follow suit. This is why even >> the first go round of Apple's new operating system is so polished. >> Just my £0.02 worth. >> >> >> On 26/08/2013 18:47, Christopher Chaltain wrote: >>> I listened to the podcast, and I never heard it stated that this was a >>> public beta. The podcaster also never explained how he got the beta >>> himself. Although he acknowledged that there's a lot of information on >>> IOS 7 available out there on the web, he also admitted that there are >>> people out there who don't feel information on IOS 7 should be >>> distributed unless it's done by Apple or until IOS 7 has been released. >>> It isn't clear to me, after listening to the podcast, whether this is a >>> public beta or whether an NDA has been violated or not. >>> >>> I'm OK with Cara and Raul determining what is and isn't appropriate for >>> the list. I just think our facts need to be accurate, and we shouldn't >>> claim things are publicly available or that NDA's haven't been violated >>> when the source we're pointing to doesn't even address those points. >>> >>> BTW, I don't think there's any more dissension in the blindness >>> community than there is in the general public. We're all people and >>> anyone can voice an opinion without or without facts to back it up and >>> the blind don't have a monopoly on this behavior. >>> >>> I'm curious, does the 37 messages include the half of dozen messages you >>> contributed to the thread? Just curious, since I haven't been counting >>> myself. >>> >>> On 08/26/2013 12:11 PM, Steve Matzura wrote: >>>> I can't believe there were thirty-seven messages written about this >>>> topic, none of which would have been necessary if anybody had listened >>>> to the program. Thinking that it was one I hadn't heard before, I >>>> downloaded it and listened. I got about two minutes into it, and >>>> realized I had indeed heard it before. If any of you who complained >>>> about Joseph's having posted this link would have done the same, you >>>> all would have heard what I heard the first time, and then again just >>>> now, that this release was already in public beta, there were no >>>> non-disclosure agreements violated, nothing was being disclosed that >>>> should not have been, information about it was all over everywhere, >>>> and that Shawn was simply going to spotlight, if you will, the >>>> accessibility features that had changed, something that most other >>>> YouTube videos would doubtfully have covered. All of you people who >>>> bashed Joseph for posting the link really need to grow up and get your >>>> facts straight before jumping on your keyboards and writing about >>>> things of which you know nothing. You wonder why there is so much >>>> dissention in the blind community about anything at all? It's because, >>>> while everybody has an opinion, nobody seems to have the facts. >>>> Opinions are cheap--everybody has one. Facts, now, they're expensive. >>>> They require thought and research. Exercise the same before bashing >>>> somebody who tried to do you a favor. >>>> >>> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google > Group. > > Post a new message to VIPhone by emailing [email protected]. > > Search and view the VIPhone archives by visiting > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/. > > Reach the VIPhone owner and moderators by emailing > [email protected]. > > Unsubscribe and leave VIPhone by emailing > [email protected]. > > More VIPhone group options can be found by visiting > http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "VIPhone" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group. Post a new message to VIPhone by emailing [email protected]. Search and view the VIPhone archives by visiting http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/. Reach the VIPhone owner and moderators by emailing [email protected]. Unsubscribe and leave VIPhone by emailing [email protected]. More VIPhone group options can be found by visiting http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VIPhone" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
