Mozilla backs EFF in iPhone jailbreak support
Mozilla, Skype, and Cydia have joined the EFF in trying to legitimize iPhone jailbreaking.
(Credit: Apple)Mozilla has thrown its support behind the Electronic Frontier Foundation's push to have the U.S. Copyright Office allow iPhone jailbreaking.
CEO John Lilly told Computerworld that "choice is good for users, and choice shouldn't be criminalized," in light of the dispute between the EFF and Apple over whether or not iPhone jailbreaking--the practice of modifying an iPhone to accept software from sources other than Apple--is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Last week Apple declared that jailbreaking an iPhone violates Apple's copyright and can cause all sorts of technical problems for the user in response to a petition from the EFF that iPhone jailbreaking be given a DMCA exemption.
Lilly's motivation would seem pretty clear: a version of the Firefox mobile browser, Fennec, for the iPhone. However, Lilly told Computerworld that he wasn't sure Mozilla would ever want to develop an iPhone version of Fennec even if Apple was forced to open up the iPhone. Apple offers Web browser alternatives to the default Safari browser in the App Store, but they aren't true alternatives since they are all required to use the Webkit rendering engine used in Safari.
"Given the choice, would we work on a platform where the sole company controlling it makes us unwelcome, or would we work on a platform, like Linux, where we are welcome? The answer is going to be easy for us," Lilly told Computerworld.
Two other software developers joined Mozilla in supporting the EFF's petition: Skype and Cydia. Cydia is exactly the piece of software that Apple railed against in its response to the EFF's petition, as it lets iPhone owners install applications from any source, rather than just the App Store. In his remarks submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office, Jay Freeman of Saurik, Cydia's developer, said "Cydia is now installed on 1.6 million devices worldwide, at least a quarter of which are within the United States."
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
For example, I purchase a gun and the manufacturer tells me to lock the gun up and keep it away from kids and I decide that is foolishness and just stick it in the closet or under my bed and a child comes along and shoots themself or someone else, then I am a Criminally Negligent and can be charged because my definition os usage is different than the manufacturer and the law.
But, I still think the DMCA is a bad law and needs to be scrapped.
While I'm at it, umbrae, there are two reasons not to buy an iPhone--Apple's restrictive policies and AT&T, a company whose legacy speaks for itself. How many other carriers freely, and illegally I might add, turn subscribers information over to federal authorities-then ask for amnesty for doing so!
You can take AT&T out of the monopoly, but you can't take the monopoly out of AT&T.
Don't Microsoft supply XNA Studio to create your own games for free? I could could create any stupid game i want, even if a similar game exists.
I think the argument is that Apple aren't giving the users choice and specifically go out of their want to prevent then having that.
The Fed Gov need to make laws that all cell phones need be application and carrier unlock so everybody can do whatever they want with their cell phone. This makes it fair for everyone.
Sure - just like Apple gives you the iPhone SDK for free, and you can run the apps you build on your iPhone all you want.
The point is that you cannot mod your firmware on an xbox, any more than you can on an iPhone (at least not without getting in trouble, jacking your warranty, etc).
But I hear you. I understand your argument. But it's a very weak argument and one clearly meant to distract people from the subject at hand. We're talking about Apple here, not Microsoft or any other company.
By the way, you too are guilty of this very thing yourself with your Hackintosh. You installed OS X on a non-Apple hardware system, violating the EULA. How do you defend yourself in this situation? That's the same situation that Apple iPhone and Touch owners are in.
The XNA gives total freedom. Not even compares to the restrictive and Draconian Apple.
4 years left people....Apple will fall.
What's wrong with the idea of "I'd love to buy an iphone, but I'd like to Jailbreak it. Since they won't allow it, I won't buy one". ?
The problem is about ownership.
Apple basically says that they have the right to define the ownership of a product, and on a very simple level they are right. For example, if you modify the engine on your car, you violate the warranty of that product and the manufacturer can refuse to service the vehicle, but Apple is arguing that they have the ability to define how I drive my vehicle beyond service and warranty and that I take huge exception to. If it is true, then I don't own my device, I rent it for a one time fee and a hidden usage payment.
The only other exception I can see is at the carrier level, AT&T could claim that a jailbroken phone could have negative impacts on their network because the applications have not been tested and certified, but that is a very dangerous path because other mobile OS'es (Windows Mobile, Symbian) have allowed significant user modification for years with little or no evidence of negative impacts to the network. So, I doubt the carrier would push too hard down this path.
Apple is pretty far out on a limb here and I don't see anyone out there with them.
Have you ever seen anyone out there with them? The iPhone is selling very well without being broken out of jail.
4 years..... Apple will fall
Jailbreaking the iPhone costs Apple nothing and actually *adds* value and use of the unit, making it even more useful and desirable, potentionally increasing sales.
mod chips are physical change, and they are used to play pirated games =.=
ms will void ur warranty for it because of change to system core but they wont sue u for it, pirated games however, not just ms, the developers will jump on u too
this is different from dev one game and shove it on the system, that is allowed
I had an iPhone and I just switched back to my razr. I looked at the option of jailbreaking, but to me it just wasn't worth it. Kudos to those of you vernturing into tech frontiers and changing the way our devices work. Modification can lead to innovation and here we're supposed to be free to do so.
As an owner of an unlocked and jailbroken iphone (and having supplied unlocked phones to several family members to use on T-Mobile) I can say with confidence that there are no issues with the procedure. Sure, the Cydia apps aren't always the best quality, and you have to be careful when downloading and installing unverified third party software, but it doesn't increase any risk to the user if they're conscious of what they're doing.
I'm really glad that the EFF has backed this cause. This is silly, and Apple will lose.
But in the end, the Apple Touch I bought with my money is mine and I'm going to do with it whatever I want regardless of what Apple has to say about it. If they want to press charges, then they'll be looking at a very large list of affected individuals who will never buy another Apple product again, and even more people who are afraid to ever buy another Apple product for fear of prosecution.
Apple keeping their phones locked, and not giving consumers the option or ability to use other than their applications is shooting themselves in the foot.
- by jafarm66 February 19, 2009 8:28 PM PST
- I wouldn't buy an Iphone due to Apple being so anal (read money hungry) for people to use App store only. If I did decide to get one I'd purchase it full price then activate on ATT and jailbreak it and do a couple of other things that Apple wouldn't like (all expcept activation against their EULA). On a side note If Apple didn't want the Mac OS installed on NON Apple boxes they should have never gone with the same chipset as PC/Clones. After all the PC probably has more "hackers" than Mac has users,
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by applusr February 20, 2009 3:11 PM PST
- Real intelligent! I hope you don't own anything sony or microsoft they are just as anal.
- Like this
-
(32 Comments)