5 ms·

Except as set forth in Section 2.1, You may not use, distribute or otherwise make Your Internal Use Applications available to Your Customers or to any third par

Except as set forth in Section 2.1, You may not use, distribute or otherwise make Your Internal Use Applications available to Your Customers or to any third parties in any way (excluding Your Internal Use Application that is for use on macOS) It’s behind the developer wall but the whole thing is here. https://download.developer.apple.com/Documentation/License_Agreements__Apple_Developer_Enterprise_Program/Apple_Developer_Enterprise_Program_License_Agreement_20181019.pdf https://download.developer.apple.com/Documentation/License_A...

gojomo 8y ago
Thanks! But note that section 2.1 expressly allows deployment to "Permitted Users", and "Permitted Users" is defined to include "contractors... who have written and binding agreements with You or Your Permitted Entity to protect Your Internal Use Application from unauthorized use". Compensated members of these apps' research panels are quite literally "contractors" of FB/Google, and possibly even under written contracts that explicitly limit the apps' use as Apple requires. So what you've quoted doesn't demonstrate a violation.
- torstenvl 8y ago
  "Internal Use Applications or Passes shall not be . . . distributed or made available to . . . contractors (except for contractors who are developing the Internal Use Application or Pass for You on a custom basis and therefore need to use or have access to such Internal Use Application or Pass)"
  - gojomo 8y ago
    But that "shall not" is prefixed by "Except as expressly set forth herein", and other sections clearly mark many "contractors" as "Permitted Users" who are expressly allowed to use such Apps/Passes.
    - torstenvl 8y ago
      Okay. Then cite one. The only provision I see that's close to what you're talking about is the definitions section, which provides that Permitted Users include "contractors . . . who have written and binding agreements with You . . . to protect Your Internal Use Application from unauthorized use" It's quite the stretch to say that this language, which by its text limits contractors to authorized uses, somehow expands the scope of authorized use. Even if you could get to that conclusion, it would not be "expressly set forth."
      - gojomo 8y ago
        The immediately preceding sentence reads: "Internal Use Applications or Passes developed using the Apple Software may only be deployed to and used by Your Employees or Permitted Users for internal use purposes or for limited use by Customers on Deployment Devices on Your (or Your Permitted Entity’s) physical premises or in other locations when the use is under Your (or Your Permitted Entity’s) direct supervision and physical control as set forth in Section 2.1(f)." Is it being used by "Permitted Users", which is elsewhere defined as including "contractors"? Yes. Is it for "internal use purposes"? An internal customer research program, which is a cost-center and involves compensated research subjects, where the data is kept internal-confidential – and where perhaps even the research-subjects are under various kinds of NDA – is pretty "internal use" from my perspective. So, yes. There's the "express authorization" that the following sentence doesn't revoke. (Even the 2.1(f) allowance for customer use might be satisfied if the app has a central monitoring/disabling switch that counts as "direct supervision and physical control". But that's a little murkier, and the 2.1(f) allowance isn't strictly necessary for this use by compensated research subjects.)
        torstenvl 8y ago
        > "Is it being used by 'Permitted Users', which is elsewhere defined as including 'contractors'?" It is not defined elsewhere as including contractors. It is defined elsewhere as including contractors who use it for authorized purposes. The bootstrapping you're attempting here is circular reasoning.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  13 year olds aren't really contractors, they're random users that they've selected to market research on.
  - gojomo 8y ago
    13-year-olds may enter contracts with parental consent, which some reporting has suggested was obtained for teenagers here.
- mikeryan 8y ago
  Look you're welcome to continue arguing this but ultimately this is a Terms of Service, not a contract. Apple can clarify this point at their discretion and even Google has now admitted in the wrong.

gojomo 8y ago

Thanks! But note that section 2.1 expressly allows deployment to "Permitted Users", and "Permitted Users" is defined to include "contractors... who have written and binding agreements with You or Your Permitted Entity to protect Your Internal Use Application from unauthorized use". Compensated members of these apps' research panels are quite literally "contractors" of FB/Google, and possibly even under written contracts that explicitly limit the apps' use as Apple requires. So what you've quoted doesn't demonstrate a violation.

torstenvl 8y ago
"Internal Use Applications or Passes shall not be . . . distributed or made available to . . . contractors (except for contractors who are developing the Internal Use Application or Pass for You on a custom basis and therefore need to use or have access to such Internal Use Application or Pass)"
- gojomo 8y ago
  But that "shall not" is prefixed by "Except as expressly set forth herein", and other sections clearly mark many "contractors" as "Permitted Users" who are expressly allowed to use such Apps/Passes.
  - torstenvl 8y ago
    Okay. Then cite one. The only provision I see that's close to what you're talking about is the definitions section, which provides that Permitted Users include "contractors . . . who have written and binding agreements with You . . . to protect Your Internal Use Application from unauthorized use" It's quite the stretch to say that this language, which by its text limits contractors to authorized uses, somehow expands the scope of authorized use. Even if you could get to that conclusion, it would not be "expressly set forth."
    - gojomo 8y ago
      The immediately preceding sentence reads: "Internal Use Applications or Passes developed using the Apple Software may only be deployed to and used by Your Employees or Permitted Users for internal use purposes or for limited use by Customers on Deployment Devices on Your (or Your Permitted Entity’s) physical premises or in other locations when the use is under Your (or Your Permitted Entity’s) direct supervision and physical control as set forth in Section 2.1(f)." Is it being used by "Permitted Users", which is elsewhere defined as including "contractors"? Yes. Is it for "internal use purposes"? An internal customer research program, which is a cost-center and involves compensated research subjects, where the data is kept internal-confidential – and where perhaps even the research-subjects are under various kinds of NDA – is pretty "internal use" from my perspective. So, yes. There's the "express authorization" that the following sentence doesn't revoke. (Even the 2.1(f) allowance for customer use might be satisfied if the app has a central monitoring/disabling switch that counts as "direct supervision and physical control". But that's a little murkier, and the 2.1(f) allowance isn't strictly necessary for this use by compensated research subjects.)
      - torstenvl 8y ago
        > "Is it being used by 'Permitted Users', which is elsewhere defined as including 'contractors'?" It is not defined elsewhere as including contractors. It is defined elsewhere as including contractors who use it for authorized purposes. The bootstrapping you're attempting here is circular reasoning.
saagarjha 8y ago
13 year olds aren't really contractors, they're random users that they've selected to market research on.
- gojomo 8y ago
  13-year-olds may enter contracts with parental consent, which some reporting has suggested was obtained for teenagers here.
mikeryan 8y ago
Look you're welcome to continue arguing this but ultimately this is a Terms of Service, not a contract. Apple can clarify this point at their discretion and even Google has now admitted in the wrong.