Dear Apple
iFuckOff.
Apple's fruitless attempts to remove its leaked iBoot source code from the internet have escalated into requests to have community code site GitHub disable all downstream forks made from identified infringing repositories. In a DMCA takedown notice sent to GitHub on Sunday and published on Monday – its sixth since the …
Oh dear, dear Apple.
Eventually you'll have to make a formal request to disable the entire Interwebs. If that doesn't work, maybe you could demand that humanity itself be disabled.
I fork, therefore I am, and now I hath seen the holy code! Oh lordy, my brain must be purged!
Yeah, that'll get me downvotes... (no, I don't like Apple either, or the DMCA, or its use)
1) They have a point. The code was leaked unlawfully, in contrast to some other company who uploaded code & encryption keys themselves and made them public - oops!
2) The bird has flown. Like a bird, a word you say cannot be caught again once you let it fly. Same applies to stuff on the internet. Even if Github complies...
3) Yes, it's against the letter of the law - but this time not against the intent. Usually it's the other way round ;)
4) If I was an Apple lawyer, I'd write me a script to follow the branches on Github, send out an individual letter for each, with individual bills.
4) If I was an Apple lawyer, I'd write me a script to follow the branches on Github, send out an individual letter for each, with individual bills.
ROFL. Lawyers can code? Please....
The only thing they can code is their bills. Make them pure gobbledegook and you get less pushback when the time comes to pay them.
The above applies to all of the scumbags not just those employed by Apple.
Apple does not have a point because of how the DMCA works: safe harbour is guaranteed for websites who in return are required to respect takedown notices without question. This is why YouTube is full of copies of the same clips because there has be a notice for each one.
However, the T&Cs at GitHub explicitly put users on the hook in this kind of situation (key difference in one of the clauses between GitHub and, say, BitBucket). So redress with GitHub's help against people for knowingly posting copyrighted code is possible.
But this code is already published in places where the DMCA has no effect. All Apple can do is continue to issue takedown orders but they really need to get over this and bury it as quickly as possible.
> are required to respect takedown notices without question.
No, no they are not.
They are allowed to first asses the takedown notice, and they can refuse a takedown if it is deficient in some way, e.g. claiming copyright ownership of something they don't own (e.g. sending a DMCA for happy birthday which is in the public domain).
They can also consult with the actual publisher of that material first (as long as they do it quickly) to get more information, and the publisher can issue a counter-DMCA notice to get the material put back up.
I expect that the hypothetical script to track copies of Apple's proprietary iBoot program code and issue automatic DMCA notices, could be tricked into issuing a DMCA for some non-infringing data. That would be painfully expensive for Apple.
Having said that, is GitHub really so full of hackers, or is this one or half a dozen hackers who are opening 100000 accounts at GitHub in order to "publish" Apple's should-be secure software to the world public and foreign governments particularly?
Live and learn... I didn't even know iBoot was a stage in Apple's boot process (had to google it). To me the term means booting from a remote disk over iSCSI, as invented by IBM (during the time when Apple computers ran on PowerPC, I might add, but absolutely unrelated). So asking GitHub to "disable searching for iBoot" as the article suggests (probably tongue-in-cheek, I realize) may be not entirely feasible.
Btw, it seems that a trademark for "iBoot" is held neither by Apple nor by IBM... Dataprobe... Go figure,
Read the motherboard report the article linked to and you'll see that it wasn't a mole. It doesn't help Google, anyway.
Should they have access to the iBoot code?
I mean, apart from being low-level, would you want a low-level dev making changes anyway? What happens if they commit something bad that somehow gets past Apple's legendary code reviews and QA...? (goto fail;) (put root as user and hit return twice)
"Now, it's fair to say all or most copies of the copyright-infringing material will also be infringing. We can't imagine someone forking the stolen iBoot blueprints, and then taking out all the Apple-eyes-only code – there wouldn't be much left, except maybe the source comments."
Even if you did this, I would have thought the fork would almost certainly still be infringing because the original code would still be contained in the git history. Sure, it's possible you could get rid of this via some git gymnastics, but in that case it would seem a bit weird to have created a fork in the first place - you'd have been better just downloading the code, removing anything infringing, and then publishing it rather than forking.
I'm not a fan, but I can see the point Apple is making. Forks are pointers to the same code until someone starts changing things. Once a repo with Apple code is identified, Github should make efforts to not allow it to proliferate.
Either way, it's a good thing for Apple that there is only one way on planet to share code anymore. That could be read as irony over the shutdown of codeplex and the slow death of sourceforge, or as sarcasm about the fact there is now millions of copies of iBoot floating around in torrents and emails.
I'm eager to see if any of my previous posts about the break-ability of handheld arm computers rings true.
Legend has it that back in the Unix days, there was a management discussion about this subject. Someone asked the lawyer what would happen if an employee were to publicize the source. <pause> "Well, he would never work again, and would probably go to jail. And the code would no longer be a trade secret."
The laws have changed, but, assuming the point of the legend is true, I doubt that the code can still be considered a "trade secret". It seems likely to me that Apple more or less has to pursue these takedowns in order to preserve their copyright. It's not entirely clear to me at all why Apple needs to preserve their copyright, however. Is it even remotely likely that someone else would make use of this code to create a competing product? Would not a letter to the dozen or so mobile phone manufacturers would preserve their rights?
Maybe they are thinking that they can attract talent by this?