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: Dan Morrison <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:13:41 -0600
FWIW, isn't an NDA similar to Government classified information
guidelines, in that someone who is cleared should not reference third-
party reports, thereby lending them legitimacy? For example, just
because Popular Mechanics prints specs on a weapon system does not
make those specs unclassified, and someone with a clearance may not
comment on their accuracy.
This is a concept that most professionals in the Federal government
sector deal with on a regular basis.
Dan
On Apr 19, 2010, at 1104 , Dave Schroeder wrote:
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 _______________________________________________
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
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________
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