6 ms·

I'm not judging his intentions here, just very curious how he managed to pull this remarkable hack off. No problem with him asking for 10$, I'd just love to tak

by dkyc 12y ago

I'm not judging his intentions here, just very curious how he managed to pull this remarkable hack off. No problem with him asking for 10$, I'd just love to take a look at the source. (I would certainly buy a version for 20$ w/ source included, and it probably wouldn't be a DRM problem either, since hackers usually aren't the type of people that believe in working DRM.)

goldenkey 12y ago
You're curious _and_ idealistic. Expecting him to give source when he needs to commercially profit from the software is beyond silly. I'd gander that you haven't been screwed over enough in life to understand the possibility of good-will gone wrong.
- comex 12y ago
  Either that, or he has, but retains idealism anyway. Based on a quick Google, I don't think this tweak has been cracked yet; however, unless the author has spent an inordinate amount of time on custom DRM* , I expect it will be eventually. At that point, there will not be much downside to releasing the source code, perhaps under a no-derivative-works license. Potential exceptions I can think of include making it harder to re-secure the tweak when updating for newer iOS versions or to add features, since someone could make an illegal fork, and making it easier for someone else to simply clone it, but I would not personally consider either of those a big deal. Of course, it will remain their choice whether to release anything; they may not see an upside, or, more likely, they will simply not see the request here and follow the norm of not doing so. However, it does not seem unreasonable to hope for/encourage them to make a different choice. * Nobody has invented DRM effective against highly skilled people, but most people cracking iOS tweaks are not highly skilled.
  - saurik 12y ago
    I am having a bit of a difficult time responding to this comment, because you seem to have simply set up and dismissed outright the primary reason why most people who release closed-source software do not also release source code (protecting their research and engineering design, making it more difficult for unskilled developers to clone their efforts and compete with them, which would undercut their ability to support their effort) and instead concentrate on your own reason (that it will undermine their DRM scheme), a reason that I have honestly never heard because it is (as you correctly point out) somewhat preposterous :/. If you were to take a second and notice that there are large numbers of closed-source projects out there where the developers did not bother with any form of DRM at all, it should become obvious that you have chosen to attack a strawman. You also have conveniently misrepresented my original complaint (and, I am pretty certain, goldenkey's later elaboration): there is a difference between "hoping for" or "encouraging" something and indicating displeasure and expectation :(. "it is too bad that comex didn't give me $10" is a fundamentally different statement than "I would really appreciate it if comex gave me $10"... even "it would be really awesome if comex had given me $10" is not a sufficient fix: it continues to imply a form of entitlement where it is not just subjectively but objectively bad that the speaker did not get what they wanted... that comex is actually doing something objectively bad (and worse, already in the past did something objectively bad: note that the tense also changes in those versions to did/had) by not giving me $10... this kind of attitude does, I believe, seem somewhat "unreasonable".
    - goldenkey 12y ago
      We'll he did make a semi-valid point about the the tweak eventually being cracked. But I do find it to be quite a straw men. There is one main problem with releasing the source code, and that is derivatives, of little extra work. Even if the tweak is cracked, there will still be many who pay for the official version off of BigBoss or the like. However, with derivatives that could eventually add more gestures, and reproduce the full behavior, comex's tweak would become muddled in a pool of competitors. Most piracy arguments come down to 'well we're gonna do it anyways so give us the keys to the castle beforehand.' This basic argument can be torn apart by the very fact of being human. We live to die but still fight to live. Caving in before a battle has begun is fundamentally inhuman
      - saurik 12y ago
        Right: the "one main problem with releasing the source code, and that is derivatives, of little extra work" is the one that comex first sets up and then immediately shoots down as if it were of no consequence ("making it easier for someone else to simply clone it, but I would not personally consider either of those a big deal"). (I respond as it isn't clear whether you are intending to agree with me or not, but your comment definitely agrees with my argument ;P.)
reeses 12y ago
Write an email and ask. People are generally decent and like to explain how they did something that impressed someone.
nutanc 12y ago
And I would be glad to pay double the amount to get access to the Apple source code

by dkyc 12y ago

goldenkey 12y ago

You're curious _and_ idealistic. Expecting him to give source when he needs to commercially profit from the software is beyond silly. I'd gander that you haven't been screwed over enough in life to understand the possibility of good-will gone wrong.

comex 12y ago
Either that, or he has, but retains idealism anyway. Based on a quick Google, I don't think this tweak has been cracked yet; however, unless the author has spent an inordinate amount of time on custom DRM* , I expect it will be eventually. At that point, there will not be much downside to releasing the source code, perhaps under a no-derivative-works license. Potential exceptions I can think of include making it harder to re-secure the tweak when updating for newer iOS versions or to add features, since someone could make an illegal fork, and making it easier for someone else to simply clone it, but I would not personally consider either of those a big deal. Of course, it will remain their choice whether to release anything; they may not see an upside, or, more likely, they will simply not see the request here and follow the norm of not doing so. However, it does not seem unreasonable to hope for/encourage them to make a different choice. * Nobody has invented DRM effective against highly skilled people, but most people cracking iOS tweaks are not highly skilled.
- saurik 12y ago
  I am having a bit of a difficult time responding to this comment, because you seem to have simply set up and dismissed outright the primary reason why most people who release closed-source software do not also release source code (protecting their research and engineering design, making it more difficult for unskilled developers to clone their efforts and compete with them, which would undercut their ability to support their effort) and instead concentrate on your own reason (that it will undermine their DRM scheme), a reason that I have honestly never heard because it is (as you correctly point out) somewhat preposterous :/. If you were to take a second and notice that there are large numbers of closed-source projects out there where the developers did not bother with any form of DRM at all, it should become obvious that you have chosen to attack a strawman. You also have conveniently misrepresented my original complaint (and, I am pretty certain, goldenkey's later elaboration): there is a difference between "hoping for" or "encouraging" something and indicating displeasure and expectation :(. "it is too bad that comex didn't give me $10" is a fundamentally different statement than "I would really appreciate it if comex gave me $10"... even "it would be really awesome if comex had given me $10" is not a sufficient fix: it continues to imply a form of entitlement where it is not just subjectively but objectively bad that the speaker did not get what they wanted... that comex is actually doing something objectively bad (and worse, already in the past did something objectively bad: note that the tense also changes in those versions to did/had) by not giving me $10... this kind of attitude does, I believe, seem somewhat "unreasonable".
  - goldenkey 12y ago
    We'll he did make a semi-valid point about the the tweak eventually being cracked. But I do find it to be quite a straw men. There is one main problem with releasing the source code, and that is derivatives, of little extra work. Even if the tweak is cracked, there will still be many who pay for the official version off of BigBoss or the like. However, with derivatives that could eventually add more gestures, and reproduce the full behavior, comex's tweak would become muddled in a pool of competitors. Most piracy arguments come down to 'well we're gonna do it anyways so give us the keys to the castle beforehand.' This basic argument can be torn apart by the very fact of being human. We live to die but still fight to live. Caving in before a battle has begun is fundamentally inhuman
    - saurik 12y ago
      Right: the "one main problem with releasing the source code, and that is derivatives, of little extra work" is the one that comex first sets up and then immediately shoots down as if it were of no consequence ("making it easier for someone else to simply clone it, but I would not personally consider either of those a big deal"). (I respond as it isn't clear whether you are intending to agree with me or not, but your comment definitely agrees with my argument ;P.)

reeses 12y ago

Write an email and ask. People are generally decent and like to explain how they did something that impressed someone.

nutanc 12y ago

And I would be glad to pay double the amount to get access to the Apple source code