According to John Hasler:
> This is improved, but it still allows revocation on the basis of a
> mere allegation of infringement. I could send a letter to Apple
> claiming that the Original Code infringes the copyright on the term
> paper I wrote for Anthro 101 in 1967 and it would be grounds for a
> suspension. It also still requires that every user continuously
> monitor a Web page.
Given the way patent law works, could it not be argued that the lack
of a similar phrase in the GPL is actually a defect in the GPL? If
Apple doesn't have *some* way to discontinue (alleged) infringement,
it can't protect itself against aggressive deep-pockets attacks.
Note also that the license is only *suspended*, and the APSL takes
explicit notice of your right to carry on as *you* see fit, even if
Apple takes a cautious path on a given disagreement.
> I find it hard to understand why Apple believes that it could have any
> liability for my use of gratis software that I pulled off a Web site.
Are you a lawyer?
I trust that Apple's lawyers aren't shadowboxing. They know how
unpopular the termination clause was, but they apparently felt that
they couldn't just remove it. And they showed they were willing to
remove unpopular clauses when possible: the export clause is gone.
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."