Re: "Personal" term in Apple license

[Alberto Luaces <aluaces@udc.es>]

Riley Baird writes:

>> When writing the file, a line caught my attention, because it mentions
>> that the license is "personal" and "non-exclusive":
>> 
>> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-osg/pkg-osg.git/tree/debian/copyright?h=debian-osg-3.2&id=0e3adbf30d2b1b02710513ac22c9711f5e9d8cad#n417
>
> This isn't a problem, since they give the users the rights required by
> the DFSG. Personal means that they are just licensing the software to
> you, non-exclusive means that they can also license it to others.
>
> The below sentences sound more ominous, although I'm not sure what
> Debian's position on this type of clause would be:
>
> Except as expressly stated in this notice, no other rights or licenses,
> express or implied, are granted by Apple herein, including but not
> limited to any patent rights that may be infringed by your derivative
> works or by other works in which the Apple Software may be
> incorporated.Except as expressly stated in this notice, no other rights
> or licenses, express or implied, are granted by Apple herein, including
> but not limited to any patent rights that may be infringed by your
> derivative works or by other works in which the Apple Software may be
> incorporated.
>
> I realise that they can't guarantee that derivative works won't
> infringe anyone else's patent, but can't they at least guarantee that
> derivative works won't infringe *Apple's* patents?

Thanks Riley for your valuable insight, specially about the patent issue
that I did not notice.  I think that then, the safest move is to remove
those files altogether from the source package, given that they are not
necessary at all.

Regards,

Alberto