3 ms·

It would be hypocrisy if they re-created a copycat apple tv and sold it or distributed it with ads. They didn't do anything like that. Also, they likely violat

by ploxiln 11y ago

It would be hypocrisy if they re-created a copycat apple tv and sold it or distributed it with ads. They didn't do anything like that. Also, they likely violate EULAs (the A is for agreement) for non-pre-release hardware all the time. Not that big a difference.

zeckalpha 11y ago
Actually, under their license (GPL) you are allowed to sell it, as long as you include the source when selling it. Most prominent example: Linux CDs sold before the Internet was fast and ubiquitous. https://github.com/iFixit/iFixit-iOS/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/iFixit/iFixit-iOS/blob/master/LICENSE
MrGando 11y ago
Some devs that actually wanted those for good didn't get any because asses like these guys wanted them to get more page views (thus taking slots).
- Buge 11y ago
  Many would say that iFixit also wanted the devices for good. They put out informative information about the devices.
  - NietTim 11y ago
    About pre-release hardware, which can change for consumer versions. Still a dick move IMO.
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Why isn't it hypocrisy to expect others to respect license agreements yet blatantly violate them themselves for publicity? Yes, the terms aren't the same, but, so?
- ploxiln 11y ago
  I would compare the apple hardware agreement they violated to software agreements which forbid analysis, reverse engineering, or even benchmarking (there's some notable enterprisey software which forbids conducting benchmarks and sharing the results). I would not condone redistributing copies of software or significant portions thereof in a way which violates the license, whether it be a copyleft license or a commercial license. If apple distributed gerber files for the PCB of the new hardware device, or original CAD schematics it uses to manufacture parts, under some license, I'd also want the terms of the distribution of that to be respected. But this is something of a different nature. It's taking hardware apart and seeing what's inside and sharing that researched information rather freely on the internet. This is not a copy of source code or hardware schematic. This is learned information. It's not vandalism - there is no expectation that any dev kits be returned, each recipient can use theirs exclusively. This is something everyone everywhere should always have the right to do. And iFixit does, more or less. What sucks is that Apple can retaliate by exerting their complete and arbitrary control over what software millions of people are permitted to run on their own devices. That's really messed up. This is just one more great example, in case you don't understand yet.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    > But this is something of a different nature. It's taking hardware apart and seeing what's inside and sharing that researched information rather freely on the internet. > This is something everyone everywhere should always have the right to do. And iFixit does, more or less. Most people get their devices by purchasing them when they are released. iFixit have been given the enormous privilege of being sent a developer unit. > What sucks is that Apple can retaliate by exerting their complete and arbitrary control over what software millions of people are permitted to run on their own devices. Apple aren't "retaliating". iFixit broke the developer terms. Their developer account was thus suspended. That developer account happened to contain their app.
  - joesb 11y ago
    It's not about them reviewing the device. It's about them reviewing the device and publish it before the product actually hits the market. Apple didn't have problem with them tearing down other Apple devices. And iFixit got the device because the sign the agreement not to publish the information before it hit the market. It's not about reverse engineering knowledge. It's about breaking the agreement, which is what iFixit is asking others not to do when using their API.

by ploxiln 11y ago

zeckalpha 11y ago

Actually, under their license (GPL) you are allowed to sell it, as long as you include the source when selling it. Most prominent example: Linux CDs sold before the Internet was fast and ubiquitous. https://github.com/iFixit/iFixit-iOS/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/iFixit/iFixit-iOS/blob/master/LICENSE

MrGando 11y ago

Some devs that actually wanted those for good didn't get any because asses like these guys wanted them to get more page views (thus taking slots).

Buge 11y ago
Many would say that iFixit also wanted the devices for good. They put out informative information about the devices.
- NietTim 11y ago
  About pre-release hardware, which can change for consumer versions. Still a dick move IMO.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

Why isn't it hypocrisy to expect others to respect license agreements yet blatantly violate them themselves for publicity? Yes, the terms aren't the same, but, so?

ploxiln 11y ago
I would compare the apple hardware agreement they violated to software agreements which forbid analysis, reverse engineering, or even benchmarking (there's some notable enterprisey software which forbids conducting benchmarks and sharing the results). I would not condone redistributing copies of software or significant portions thereof in a way which violates the license, whether it be a copyleft license or a commercial license. If apple distributed gerber files for the PCB of the new hardware device, or original CAD schematics it uses to manufacture parts, under some license, I'd also want the terms of the distribution of that to be respected. But this is something of a different nature. It's taking hardware apart and seeing what's inside and sharing that researched information rather freely on the internet. This is not a copy of source code or hardware schematic. This is learned information. It's not vandalism - there is no expectation that any dev kits be returned, each recipient can use theirs exclusively. This is something everyone everywhere should always have the right to do. And iFixit does, more or less. What sucks is that Apple can retaliate by exerting their complete and arbitrary control over what software millions of people are permitted to run on their own devices. That's really messed up. This is just one more great example, in case you don't understand yet.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  > But this is something of a different nature. It's taking hardware apart and seeing what's inside and sharing that researched information rather freely on the internet. > This is something everyone everywhere should always have the right to do. And iFixit does, more or less. Most people get their devices by purchasing them when they are released. iFixit have been given the enormous privilege of being sent a developer unit. > What sucks is that Apple can retaliate by exerting their complete and arbitrary control over what software millions of people are permitted to run on their own devices. Apple aren't "retaliating". iFixit broke the developer terms. Their developer account was thus suspended. That developer account happened to contain their app.
- joesb 11y ago
  It's not about them reviewing the device. It's about them reviewing the device and publish it before the product actually hits the market. Apple didn't have problem with them tearing down other Apple devices. And iFixit got the device because the sign the agreement not to publish the information before it hit the market. It's not about reverse engineering knowledge. It's about breaking the agreement, which is what iFixit is asking others not to do when using their API.