Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:33451 comp.sys.mac.hypercard:2071 comp.sys.mac.programmer:6977 news.misc:3179 news.sysadmin:2474
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu
From: jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (John G Dobnick,EMS E380,4142295727,)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.hypercard,comp.sys.mac.programmer,news.misc,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Official Legal Announcement regarding Apple's Source Code
Message-ID: <2928@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 89 03:53:41 GMT
References: <2073@astroatc.UUCP>
Sender: news@csd4.milw.wisc.edu
Lines: 50

From article <2073@astroatc.UUCP>, by brown@astroatc.UUCP (Vidiot):
> In article <32402@apple.Apple.COM> moore2@applelink.apple.com writes:
> <I have been asked to post the following announcement widely.
> <	Erik E. Fair	apple!fair	fair@apple.com
> <		NOTICE TO INTERNET AND USENET USERS
> <	It has been reported to Apple Computer, Inc. that a copy of
> <portions of its copyrighted source code, which were stolen, has been
> <posted on USENET.  [...]
> 
> I hate to sound a little dumb, but what the Hell was stolen, ie, what
> was the name or what did the program do?
> 
> What good is it to say that something has been stolen without describing
> the stolen item.

(Assuming the validity of other postings...  a sometimes dangerous activity)

Someone received a disk which claimed to contain source code to Apple Mac
ROMS.  (Color QuickDraw, I think, and other ROM software.)  The (self-styled?)
nuPromethius League claimed "credit" saying "we at Apple" are doing this
to make it easier for clone-makers.  They promised version 7.) of the OS
when they could get it, along with other Apple software.

Naturally, Apple frowns on this.  Hence the stongly worded note.

Personally, I see no evidence on my system that any such source was
posted to netnews.  No source, no cancel messages, no gaps in
article sequence numbers...  I don't think anything was posted to
the net. 

One person proposed the "Reichstag Fire" theory... namely that Apple
themselves "leaked" some innocuous source to lay the legal groundwork
for challenging any Mac clones.  (See comp.sys.mac.programmer, among
other groups, for the original articles.)

I gather that Mac clones are immenent.  This brouhaha seems to put a 
severe legal damper on release of such clones -- the clonemakers will 
now have to prove they *didn't* have access to Apple source.  I see the
potential for nasty copyright battles, possibly putting "look and feel"
to shame.

[An interesting theory --  an "attack" leak.]
-- 
John G Dobnick
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
INTERNET: jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu
UUCP: <backbone>!uwvax!uwmcsd1!jgd

"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight."  -- William Safire