[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The APSL and Export Controls

On Sun, 28 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > I wrote:
> > > I also find it a bit worrisome that you could misjudge such an
> > > obviously non-free license.
> > 
> > Chip Salzenberg writes:
> > > Besides, hindsight is 20/20 -- if the export clause is so 'obviously' an
> > > OSD violation, why is it only now a subject of public debate?
> > 
> > I wasn't referring to the export clause.
> But the export clause is the only OSD violation in the license, AFAIK.

2.2(c) is an unpleasant restriction, which probably violates (does
violate, IMO) point 3 of the DFSG.

You cannot distribute modified works under the same terms as the license
on the original software - you must first notify Apple, on a particular
web-page. What do you do if apple's website is down?  If you don't have
access to the internet?  If accessing the internet costs you $100?  If
apple have moved/removed that page and not told anyone.  Under these
circumstances, you cannot distribute your modified works.

Cupertino has a power-cut, and your works become non-distributable.
That's not free.

Point 9.1 is also pretty unpleasant, and IMO non-free, but AFAICT, it
doesn't fail the DFSG.  (AFAICT, software which said 'I may revoke this
license at any time' would still be DFSG-free - this is a bug in the

Also, the trailer:

In any event, you must be of majority age and otherwise competent to enter
into contracts to accept this license.

fails DFSG point (5).  There's no point telling me why apple added this
clause - I do understand why.  Nonetheless, IMO, it fails point (5).

Thanks for listening.


|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd        |
|  Jules aka     |                               |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk        |  TW9 2TF *UK*       |
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left.             |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.          |

Reply to: