Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?

[Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>]

> > It means either (a) that the license is not a contract, or (b)
> > that the license is invalid.

On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 04:53:11PM +0200, Patrick Herzig wrote:
> Combined with the principle of Precatory Language I'd have a strong
> leaning for (b) with respect to German jurisdiction.

I suppose then that I should explain where I came up with (b).

First, note that Section 2 begins

   2. Permitted Uses; Conditions & Restrictions. Subject to the terms
   and conditions of this License, Apple hereby grants You,

Second, there's 13.5:

   13.5 Severability. (a) If for any reason a court of competent
   jurisdiction finds any provision of this License, or portion thereof,
   to be unenforceable, that provision of the License will be enforced
   to the maximum extent permissible so as to effect the economic
   benefits and intent of the parties, and the remainder of this License
   will continue in full force and effect. (b) Notwithstanding the
   foregoing, if applicable law prohibits or restricts You from fully
   and/or specifically complying with Sections 2 and/or 3 or prevents
   the enforceability of either of those Sections, this License will
   immediately terminate and You must immediately discontinue any use
   of the Covered Code and destroy all copies of it that are in your
   possession or control.

Whether this actually means that the license is invalid would be
determined by the court in question.  Some courts might indicate
that (b) is invalid for this context and that (a) is valid...

-- 
Raul