On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 06:54:20AM -0900,
Ethan Benson wrote:
> RMS disagrees that Apple's licence is free. I came to the same
> conclusion myself before i even came across this page:
> (and yes before you ask i have looked at the second version of the
I wrote my message before I looked into the license (I'll tell in a
minute why). When I did read the license, I didn't really feel comfortable
as well, for the following reasons:
* The fact that it says that you have to announce to Apple any
modifications you make
* The fact that you have to do this even if you only use it internally,
not for R&D
I did this before I got your message, en when reading the page you sent
me, I'm not really sure on the way RMS interpretes the termination clause
- AFAICS you *can* fight patents yourself:
(last sentence of section 9.1)
"If Apple suspends ... nothing in this License shall be construed to
restrict You ... from independently negotiating for necessary rights ..."
I won't argue about the other two though.
All that aside, the OSD says it *is* an opensource license, and IIRC,
everything which complies with the OSD (except for QPL) should also be
DFSG-compliant, so technically it shouldn't be a problem to base a
distribution on this (even though I am not sure I'd still want to).
- From: Filip Van Raemdonck <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: Darwin?
- From: Ethan Benson <email@example.com>