Re: [Fed-Talk] iPhone SDK / OS 4 - Confidential
Re: [Fed-Talk] iPhone SDK / OS 4 - Confidential
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] iPhone SDK / OS 4 - Confidential
- From: Dave Schroeder <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:04:33 -0500
On Apr 19, 2010, at 10:00 AM, Taylor Armstrong wrote:
> Guys, with all due respect, why is Shawn having to remind any of us of the NDA?
>
> Of all lists, I would expect the Fed-Talk to be a forum of professionals who take this stuff seriously. This isn't Insanely-Mac.com.
>
> Apple HAS recently created forums on the developer site where things can be discussed under the umbrella of the NDA - if you want to discuss things that are, or MIGHT be covered under the NDA, I suggest that is the appropriate place to do so. The Federal ethics regulations often cite the "appearance" of impropriety as the line that you shouldn't cross - it doesnt' matter if you're breaking the NDA or not, this just isn't the place.
The problem is when things are discussed/revealed publicly on open internet sites, or in the press, e.g.:
http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone
I AM bound by Apple's NDA, but I am NOT in violation of an NDA by referring someone to openly and publicly published material that may or may not speak to someone's question (e.g., if there were a report that confirmed or refuted something like email certificate support in iPhone OS 4.0).
Please note that I am not saying that folks shouldn't act like professionals. But at the same time, we can't simply pretend that public reporting doesn't exist.
Apple's standard NDA explicitly allows for this:
> 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.
<http://developer.apple.com/programs/terms/registered_apple_developer_20100301.pdf>
Please refer to your particular NDA for direction on treatment of Apple Confidential information, or information that has become publicly available through no fault or action of your own.
Now, when it gets to *discussing* it in any substantive way -- or depending on any unconfirmed information or rumors, which would be foolish -- that's still more of a gray area: we're not here to slap Apple in the face, but there is a large volume of public reporting of information about iPhone OS 4.0, beyond what information Apple has provided on its public web site, and we'd be equally foolish to pretend it doesn't exist.
- Dave
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden