A tribute...

[heiowge]

He ruled his empire with an iron fist. He had, and probably still has, masses of brainwashed followers who worshipped him like a god. Some would call him a megalomaniac - but not to his face. They had a strange sense of loyalty bred by his insular regime, hanging on to obsolete technology, whatever the cost.

The world might be different without him, but who's to say it'll be worse? Steve Jobs will be missed.

[AndyBaxman]

[External_Floppy]

I hope after that moving tribute you won't be identifying yourself as an Apple employee.

A quote from a piece on the guy who got sacked after he vented on Facebook.

In a copy of the document leaked to the magazine PC World, the company states that if you identify yourself as an Apple employee you “should ensure that content associated with you is consistent with Apple policies”.

[Nuke]

I hope after that moving tribute you won't be identifying yourself as an Apple employee.

A quote from a piece on the guy who got sacked after he vented on Facebook.

In a copy of the document leaked to the magazine PC World, the company states that if you identify yourself as an Apple employee you “should ensure that content associated with you is consistent with Apple policies”.

Sounds like a relatively liberal company policy to me. The companies I have worked for have said that you should never identify yourself as a company employee outside of business, and that no public comments should be made about the company except through the Public Relations Dept. I had assumed that was normal for companies.

[External_Floppy]

This is normal? 'All your thoughts are belong to us!' sprung to mind when I read it. The mantra of a cult.

Plus, if it's normal then why would it need to be 'leaked'...?

[Nuke]

This is normal? 'All your thoughts are belong to us!' sprung to mind when I read it. The mantra of a cult.

As I said it has been normal in the large companies for which I have worked. Moreover my wife has worked for small companies in which the boss has gone ape on hearing that an employee has been talking about it in anything but marketing sound bites.

Plus, if it's normal then why would it need to be 'leaked'...?

Perhaps because Apple is a US company and in the US they get on a very high horse over "Freedom of Information" , so Apple are reluctant to reveal this policy to outsiders?

A close relation of mine works for a US company (in the UK), a name you would be familiar with but (in the spirit of this post) I will not reveal. He also writes OSS as a hobby (some of which has been reviewed more than once in LXF before now) and has several web sites. He must let them scrutinise everything before public release to ensure it does not infringe any of their copyrights, reveal any of their trade secrets, or suggest any connection with themselves. This practice is more widespread than you might be led to believe.

I am not sold on Freedom of Information myself. I have always worked in heavy industry, for certain companies that have been fashionable for people to bash, and have seen information released to the public in good faith only to be deliberately twisted around, quoted out of context and otherwise abused by opponents and their clever lawyers. Greenpeace are one of the worst offenders, and I notice that Apple are one of their favourite targets (for no particular reason above any other PC hardware comany). For once I take Apple's side.

[guy]

As I said it has been normal in the large companies for which I have worked. Moreover my wife has worked for small companies in which the boss has gone ape on hearing that an employee has been talking about it in anything but marketing sound bites.

In the large companies where I have worked, it is certainly not normal. Of course slagging off one's employer/manager opens one to prosecution for slander or libel, but after knocking-off time, your life is your own. I have also worked for small companies where the boss routinely goes ape, because he doesn't know what else to do (which of course is why these companies stay small.)

A close relation of mine works for a US company (in the UK) ... He also writes OSS as a hobby ... and has several web sites. He must let them scrutinise everything before public release to ensure it does not infringe any of their copyrights, reveal any of their trade secrets, or suggest any connection with themselves. This practice is more widespread than you might be led to believe.

It may well be widespread. It also drives a coach and horses through the right to free speech. Such illegal terms and conditions are not enforcible. Large companies often get away with a good deal of such bully-boy type lawbreaking - more so in the US than here, thank goodness. (If I were your friend, I'd be tempted to stop letting them invade me privacy, I mean scrutinise my work before publishing, let 'em sack me, then go to a (UK) employment tribunal for wrongful dismissal. Oh, yeah, and keep the news hacks informed of progress!)

I am not sold on Freedom of Information myself. I have always worked in heavy industry, for certain companies that have been fashionable for people to bash, and have seen information released to the public in good faith only to be deliberately twisted around, quoted out of context and otherwise abused by opponents and their clever lawyers.

I am not sold on Control of Information myself. I have always worked in public, for certain companies that have been fashionable for people to bash, and have seen information released to heavy industry in good faith only to be deliberately twisted around, quoted out of context and otherwise abused by opponents and their clever lawyers. (well, give or take some liberties with my CV).
The existence of one Bad Bunny is no justification for approving a rival Bad Bunnie's bad habits.

For once I take Apple's side.

So you reckon "an Apple employee should ensure that content associated with [them] is consistent with Apple policies", eh?
That's infringing the right to free speech, not to freedom of information. I believe that one of these is enshrined in the American Constitution, the other is not.

[nelz]

Letting them "clear" his code is a good idea. It's opensource, so they can read it anyway, but by allowing them to approve it they can't later turn round and claim IP theft, which they might otherwise be tempted to try if he left to work for a competitor.

[wyliecoyoteuk]

That's infringing the right to free speech, not to freedom of information. I believe that one of these is enshrined in the American Constitution, the other is not.

Not for much longer if SOPA gets passed by the corrupt USA establishment.
A bit like the DMA in the UK it proves the total corruption of supposedly democratic governments that can be bought by big business.

[guy]

Letting them "clear" his code is a good idea. It's opensource, so they can read it anyway, but by allowing them to approve it they can't later turn round and claim IP theft, which they might otherwise be tempted to try if he left to work for a competitor.

Knowing big organisations, even ethical ones, that could introduce a big delay. Better to cc a copy to them "out of courtesy", & invite them to get back if they have any problems with it. But don't wait up.

[nelz]

Ask them to respond either way. That way you have a statement that your code does not infringe their IP, which is much better than the lack of a statement that it doesn't.

[Brian Hunter]

[heiowge]

Just need David Cameron for the complete set.

[Brian Hunter]

Just need David Cameron for the complete set.

Wishing thinking heiowge?