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

Re: The APSL and Export Controls

On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:

> According to Jules Bean:
> > 2.2(c) is an unpleasant restriction, which probably violates (does
> > violate, IMO) point 3 of the DFSG.
> We understand the unpleasantness to some of 2.2(c), but we don't think
> that it violates the OSD.
> > 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.
> You need to look more carefully at the difference between the patch
> and the derived work.  The derived work _may_ be distributed under
> original terms.  Only the patch must be uploaded to Apple; if Apple's
> web site is down, that item is unenforceable and thus void until the
> web site is back up.

Don't patronise me, please.  I can read.  I can be wrong... certainly. But
I do know how to read.

Let me quote:

(c) must notify Apple and other third parties of how to obtain Your
                Modifications by filling out and submitting the required
information found at
                http://www.apple.com/publicsource/modifications.html; and

Must!  I *must* notify apple by filling out the form.  If I can't, for any
of the reasons I suggested above, I cannot distribute the derived work.

It say 'You may deploy covered code, provided that you must...'

> > What do you do if you don't have access to the internet?  If
> > accessing the internet costs you $100?
> Improvise.  In practical terms, Apple won't care if you use a slow
> method of publication like, say, mailing a floppy disk to a friend who
> has a cheap connection.

We're not talking about practical terms.  We're talking about a contract

I know Apple's a good guy.  Hell, I've used their computers enough.  I
don't doubt their sincerity.

However, if someone unpleasant takes the reigns at apple, by the simple
act of 'accidentally' removing a webpage, they can then sue anyone who
modifies this software.  That's not free.

For this clause to satisfy me, I'd like to see the clause say something

..make a serious and genuine attempt to communicate the nature of your
patches to apple, perhaps by filling out the form at..

Or, better still,

Apple requests that you notify them, giving details of your modifications,
so that these modifications can benefit the whole community.  Details can
be entered at...

> > In any event, you must be of majority age and otherwise competent to enter
> > into contracts to accept this license.
> > 
> > fails DFSG point (5).
> In our opinion, it doesn't.  It isn't discrimination to require that a
> contract be entered into by only those competent to do so.  OTOH, I
> think it might be useful for Apple to drop it, since there's no point
> in repeating law-of-the-land in contract language.

Law of the land doesn't say that.

The law of the land is complex.  A minor can certainly enter into
contracts.  To a greater-or-lesser extent, those contracts may be
unenforceable.  If a minor has voluntarily entered into a contract which
*gives him* a right (the right to copy and use darwin) and doesn't
attempt to restrict him in ways he doesn't understand, then the courts
will enforce the contract (although the chances of significant penalties
against him are almost nil).

Most other licenses don't bother with this clause.  I can't believe it's


|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd	       |
|  Jules aka     | jules@debian.org              |  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: