stuart@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (S. D. Ericson) (04/09/90)
In article <1990Apr7.235132.15047@uokmax.uucp>, rob@uokmax.uucp (Bolo) writes: > In article <2364@tellab5.tellabs.com> kenk@tellab5.UUCP (Ken Konecki) writes: > >In article <1465@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: > >Money doesn't grow on tress and Internet hook ups are very expensive. > >With respect to complaining at the source, the source is Apple. News > > "Money doesn't grow on trees" is probably the reason. I know that if I were When those emplyees at apple.com first mentioned that they might be soon providing ftp access to future system software, they mentioned that the problem was CONVINCING THE LAWYERS that they wouldn't loose any software rights. I believe the issue was one of being able to track who gets the software. They were finally able to convince the lawyers that ftp tracks (logs) the connections and thus they would know who got the software. So the problem is a LEGAL one - the Apple Legal team is the one that won't allow the other forms of distribution (yet?). Stuart -- Stuart Ericson AT&T Bell Laboratories USEnet: att!ihlpa!stuart IH 1C215 ARPA: stuart@ihlpa.att.com 2000 N. Naperville Road Voice: (708) 979-4491 Naperville, Il 60566-7033
jeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeff White) (04/10/90)
In article <14964@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> stuart@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (S. D. Ericson) writes: >In article <1990Apr7.235132.15047@uokmax.uucp>, rob@uokmax.uucp (Bolo) writes: >> In article <2364@tellab5.tellabs.com> kenk@tellab5.UUCP (Ken Konecki) writes: > >When those emplyees at apple.com first mentioned that they might be soon >providing ftp access to future system software, they mentioned that the >problem was CONVINCING THE LAWYERS that they wouldn't loose any software >rights. > >I believe the issue was one of being able to track who gets the software. >They were finally able to convince the lawyers that ftp tracks (logs) the >connections and thus they would know who got the software. It's often been mentioned that an individual is supposed to be able to go to a local Apple dealer and have them copy the software for you. If this is truw (I've never done it), do they make any records of it (ie. ask for some type of ID)? If they don't, I don't see ftp'ing the software is much different. Jeff White jeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
hal@krishna.cs.cornell.edu (Hal Perkins) (04/11/90)
In article <23016@netnews.upenn.edu> Jeff White writes: >In article <14964@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> S. D. Ericson writes: >>I believe the issue was one of being able to track who gets the software. >>They were finally able to convince the lawyers that ftp tracks (logs) the >>connections and thus they would know who got the software. > > It's often been mentioned that an individual is supposed to be able to go >to a local Apple dealer and have them copy the software for you. If this >is truw (I've never done it), do they make any records of it (ie. ask for >some type of ID)? If they don't, I don't see ftp'ing the software is much >different. Hey folks, remember we're talking about Lawyers here, not common sense or reality. I'm pretty impressed that the DTS folks managed to get the systems software on the internet at all. Apple's lawyers apparently have great paranoia about unrestricted electronic distribution of the system software. When you get it from a dealer, presumably the dealer verifies that you're a real Macintosh owner and entitled to it, at least to the satisfaction of the legal types. With most online services and with ftp, there's at least a record showing the user id of the person who copied it. If anyone could copy the software and put it up for anonymous ftp on their machine, Apple has no record of who else copied it. Given the chaotic state of intellectual property law, the lawyers might be right to worry. Hal Perkins hal@cs.cornell.edu Cornell CS
kovar@popvax.uucp (David C. Kovar) (04/12/90)
In article <14964@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> stuart@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (S. D. Ericson) writes: >I believe the issue was one of being able to track who gets the software. >They were finally able to convince the lawyers that ftp tracks (logs) the >connections and thus they would know who got the software. Sounds like they snowed their lawyers very well. FTP logs where the connection came from and who logged in. The login is almost always "anonymous" so there goes any chance of knowing who the actual person is. The address of the connection is an IP address (128.103.1.1 for example) which can be resolved into a name that should include the institution that the connection came from. Alas for Apple and their lawyers, I can easily make most any machine use most any IP address and pretend to be any machine I want. (There are some complications due to gateways, other machines, and the like but in general those are easily overcome.) So, in short, they have very little knowledge of who is picking up their software and no current method for limiting it to the people they want it to go to. If they lawyers believed that they know who is getting their software, they're deluded. -David C. Kovar Consultant ARPA: kovar@popvax.harvard.edu Eclectic Associates BITNET: corwin@harvarda.bitnet Ma Bell: 617-646-0428 MacNET: DKovar "It is easier to get forgiveness than permission." [All opinions expressed are my own. Noone else assumes responsibility for me.]
kovar@popvax.harvard.edu (David C. Kovar) (04/13/90)
Expires:
References:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution: world
Organization: Health Sciences Computing Facility, Harvard University
Keywords:
Nothing wakes you up in the morning like a good flame. *sigh* Yesyerday
I posted an article explaining that if the Apple lawyers had been convinced
that they could track the distribution of files via their FTP server then
they had been mislead.
This morning I received a mail message asking a) if I didn't appreciate
the service and b) if I was trying to show how smart I was.
I appreciate the service very much which is one reason WHY I posted my
mail message. If the lawyers believe that can track the distribution and
then they find out the hard way that they can't, they're very likely going
to yank the whole thing and never consider it again. If they are informed
ahead of time by responsible people within Apple, then a compromise might
be worked out between the lawyers and Apple to allow the service to continue.
There is also a secondary issue here that I consider important. Security
on the net is pretty lax as we all know. Hackers flit in and out all the
time. But a lot of people, myself included, are attempting to make the
systems more secure while keeping them reasonably accessible. One of the
best tools for doing so is INFORMATION. And, to be useful, it has to be
CORRECT information. If someone believes that they have an audit trail
when they really don't, they're going to be very annoyed when they find
out after they need that audit trail. And you may not like lawyers but
your company lawyers are really on your side most of the time. If they
are accurately informated then they can help provide services in a more
secure and friendly fashion. Lie, or mislead them and they're just going
to tell you that you can't provide the service.
I could go on, but I shan't. Hopefully you get the idea. I wasn't trying
to show off I was trying to educate. I probably should have been more clear
about that. I also get really ticked off when someone chews me out for
correcting information that is dangerously misleading. If you want to keep
other people in the dark just because you appreciate a service, then you're
getting that service at a potential cost to someone else. Let's all try
and educate, not hide, please. And do so in a friendly fashion.
-David C. Kovar
Consultant ARPA: kovar@popvax.harvard.edu
Eclectic Associates BITNET: corwin@harvarda.bitnet
Ma Bell: 617-646-0428 MacNET: DKovar
"It is easier to get forgiveness than permission."
[All opinions expressed are my own. Noone else assumes responsibility for me.]