Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
> > It means either (a) that the license is not a contract, or (b)
> > that the license is invalid.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 04:53:11PM +0200, Patrick Herzig wrote:
> Combined with the principle of Precatory Language I'd have a strong
> leaning for (b) with respect to German jurisdiction.
I suppose then that I should explain where I came up with (b).
First, note that Section 2 begins
2. Permitted Uses; Conditions & Restrictions. Subject to the terms
and conditions of this License, Apple hereby grants You,
Second, there's 13.5:
13.5 Severability. (a) If for any reason a court of competent
jurisdiction finds any provision of this License, or portion thereof,
to be unenforceable, that provision of the License will be enforced
to the maximum extent permissible so as to effect the economic
benefits and intent of the parties, and the remainder of this License
will continue in full force and effect. (b) Notwithstanding the
foregoing, if applicable law prohibits or restricts You from fully
and/or specifically complying with Sections 2 and/or 3 or prevents
the enforceability of either of those Sections, this License will
immediately terminate and You must immediately discontinue any use
of the Covered Code and destroy all copies of it that are in your
possession or control.
Whether this actually means that the license is invalid would be
determined by the court in question. Some courts might indicate
that (b) is invalid for this context and that (a) is valid...