Just to add a bit to this thread and then put it to rest, hopefully ;-) Of course, I'm under NDA and I understand the reasons about not wanting to piss Apple off. However, like Glenn suggested, I think it's reasonable that people under NDA can talk about it. The only gray area I see in this reasoning is that there is no way I can find whether Peter is really under NDA and he doesn't know if I'm really under NDA. I did have some talks by chat with Rudy earlier this afternoon and without revealing any secret, I was able to fix my copy of GrowlMail. I don't think there was any harm caused to Apple. Of course, the changes cannot be checked in public repositories. That's understandable, even if the fix is very minor and doesn't even imply any code change. Doing so would open a door to more risks of revealing something that should not be revealed...
-Laurent. -- Laurent Daudelin AIM/iChat/Skype:LaurentDaudelin http://nemesys.dyndns.org Logiciels Nemesys Software [email protected] Photo Gallery Store: http://laurentdaudelin.shutterbugstorefront.com/g/galleries On Sep 4, 2009, at 17:14 , Chris Forsythe wrote: > Rudy said he was going to commit changes to his private repo until > 10.6.1 is out. > > We're an open source project, any changes in any kind of release > (beta or final) goes into a public repo. > > I think you knee jerk replied without reading the thread, or > understanding what I meant. Unfortunately for people like Laurent > who have access and cannot get GrowlMail working, they either have > to fix things themselves, or wait for us to fix it. The same is true > for people who get the final release (i.e. everyone) of 10.6.1. The > only difference is that the mere fact GrowlMail is broken in 10.6.1 > means that something did change somewhere in the code that we have > going. Meaning that Laurent, as a person who has access, and someone > we can assume is under NDA since people not under NDA most likely > have 10.6.1 illegally, can't say what's hanged. > > You didn't understand what I typed, which is understandable since I > typically respond in very short sentences which are meant to be read > as they are typed, and not interpretted. There is nothing that we > can do about it until 10.6.1 is released. The same with snow > leopard. But the day snow leopard came out, we had stuff committed > to the repo about it, and were able to work publicly. > > Our policy is to not piss apple off. Period. Our current stance is > designed to do that. If apple wanted us to put out fixes for 10.6.1 > right away before it's released, they wouldn't make the betas of > their updates nda. I understand the intention as you do with the pre- > releases under nda, however for an open source project that puts us > into a bind, because we can easily (or not so easily) break the nda, > get people fired (people who are developers on open source projects > on os x sometimes have access to select due to their employment), > can get them sued, or could even get them into an agreement to no > longer use a mac (apple settled a court case in this manner > previously). We simply do not want to put ourselves into that > position. > > Feel free to comment, but I don't think this is an unreasonable > stance for us to have Glen. > > Chris > > On Sep 4, 2009, at 6:51 PM, Glenn Rempe wrote: > >> >> I would suggest a more careful reading of the Apple NDA for pre- >> release OS X software. It is my understanding that developers who >> are >> in the program are allowed to discuss pre-release software with other >> registered developers (perhaps not in this public forum, but >> certainly >> over email). In addition, IMHO I think it is Apple's explicit intent >> that developers are building software releases *before* public >> release >> of new OS software for testing purposes so that the software can be >> ready on release day. There were *many* commercial software dev >> companies that released Snow Leopard compatible builds (perhaps as >> beta's), and promoted them as having 'fixes for Snow Leopard', prior >> to the official release of OS 10.6. In fact it is in Apple's >> interest >> to have software ready to go on day one, and I believe one of the key >> reasons that developers were given *much* earlier access months >> before >> the release of SL than they were prior to 10.5 (which most devs only >> got access to on release day). >> >> All I'm saying is, as long as you are not releasing confidential >> Apple >> information provided to you under NDA, there should be no >> restrictions >> on builds and I think you may be err'ing too much on the side of >> caution. >> >> No? >> >> Cheers. >> >> On Sep 4, 3:15 pm, Chris Forsythe <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sep 4, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Laurent Daudelin wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 4, 2009, at 12:54 , Peter Hosey wrote: >>> >>>>> On Sep 4, 2009, at 11:27:21, Laurent Daudelin wrote: >>>>>> Hello Peter. >>> >>>>> I'm not the only developer on this list, you know. ☺ >>> >>>>>> Don't want to rush anything but any ETA on the 10.6.1 (Mail 4.1) >>>>>> compatible GrowlMail plugin? I'm guessing that one of those >>>>>> strings >>>>>> in the Info.plist probably holds the key to the compatibility? >>> >>>>> Remember, 10.6.1 isn't out yet, so it's still under NDA. >>> >>>>> Depending on what the fix entails and when 10.6.1 arrives, we may >>>>> have >>>>> the fix out in a 1.2 beta (and then 1.2). If not, it'll probably >>>>> be >>>>> 1.2.1. >>> >>>> Ouch! >>> >>> When you sign up for apple nda software, this is the price you >>> unfortunately pay, and the stance we must take. :) >>> >>> Chris >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
