Re: Apple's APSL 2.0
On 2004-06-25 10:32:01 +0100 Ryan Rasmussen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines?
This question doesn't really make sense as phrased, IMO.
"We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
"free" in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines."
What software in debian is covered by this licence, what software are
you intending to package for debian that has this licence, or are you
asking for comments on behalf of the licence author with their
Anyway, termination clause 12.1(c) looks like it might contaminate
(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during
the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement
against Apple; provided that Apple did not first commence
an action for patent infringement against You in that instance.
Should be limited to actions involving the licensed software in some
Beyond DFSG, I also have the same queries as MPL about the venue
13.6 Dispute Resolution. Any litigation or other dispute resolution
between You and Apple relating to this License shall take place in the
Northern District of California, and You and Apple hereby consent to
the personal jurisdiction of, and venue in, the state and federal
courts within that District with respect to this License. [...]
Does this force licensees worldwide to be represented in the Northern
District of California if Apple wishes to sue them?
There's already a choice of law clause in 13.7, so does this allow
Apple to force licensors to spend money arbitrarily?
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"To be English is not to be baneful / To be standing by
the flag not feeling shameful / Racist or partial..."