Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:34026 comp.sys.mac.hypercard:2129 comp.sys.mac.programmer:7238 news.misc:3284 news.sysadmin:2520
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
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: <14406@bfmny0.UUCP>
Date: 21 Jun 89 02:53:22 GMT
References: <32402@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac
Organization: ^
Lines: 25

The rumored theft of the Mac ROM source has been reported elsewhere in
the media in the past few days.  Even if it happened, there is no
evidence visible to me that any of it was posted to a USENET newsgroup.
Some of it may (I suppose) have been exchanged between individuals via
netmail, and the legal eagles at Apple may be ill informed as to the
distinction between these two distribution channels (this certainly
happens often enough under other circumstances, right?).  I get the
strong impression that Erik Fair posted that legal boilerplate under
orders from his superiors and has no personal involvement in the issue
one way or another.

Since it's likely that the USENET (Netnews) rumor which was "reported
to" Apple (according to the original article) is just garden variety
misinformation, I suggest that newsreaders take the announcement at face
value and (if you don't have purloined code in your possession) forget
about it.  Apple should have better sense than to fart so loudly amongst
its net neighbors, but I suspect this is their lawyers talking
(translation: cya), and if Apple were to pay its lawyers the big bucks
based on degree of USENET sensitivity they would be delinquent with the
shareholders' money.
-- 
You may not redistribute this article for profit without written permission.
--
Tom Neff				UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."	Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET