Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines?
---
APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE
Version 2.0 - August 6, 2003
Please read this License carefully before downloading this software.
By downloading or using this software, you are agreeing to be bound by
the terms of this License. If you do not or cannot agree to the terms
of this License, please do not download or use the software.
1. General; Definitions. This License applies to any program or other
work which Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") makes publicly available and
which contains a notice placed by Apple identifying such program or
work as "Original Code" and stating that it is subject to the terms of
this Apple Public Source License version 2.0 ("License"). As used in
this License:
1.1 "Applicable Patent Rights" mean: (a) in the case where Apple is
the grantor of rights, (i) claims of patents that are now or hereafter
acquired, owned by or assigned to Apple and (ii) that cover subject
matter contained in the Original Code, but only to the extent
necessary to use, reproduce and/or distribute the Original Code
without infringement; and (b) in the case where You are the grantor of
rights, (i) claims of patents that are now or hereafter acquired,
owned by or assigned to You and (ii) that cover subject matter in Your
Modifications, taken alone or in combination with Original Code.
1.2 "Contributor" means any person or entity that creates or
contributes to the creation of Modifications.
1.3 "Covered Code" means the Original Code, Modifications, the
combination of Original Code and any Modifications, and/or any
respective portions thereof.
1.4 "Externally Deploy" means: (a) to sublicense, distribute or
otherwise make Covered Code available, directly or indirectly, to
anyone other than You; and/or (b) to use Covered Code, alone or as
part of a Larger Work, in any way to provide a service, including but
not limited to delivery of content, through electronic communication
with a client other than You.
1.5 "Larger Work" means a work which combines Covered Code or portions
thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License.
1.6 "Modifications" mean any addition to, deletion from, and/or change
to, the substance and/or structure of the Original Code, any previous
Modifications, the combination of Original Code and any previous
Modifications, and/or any respective portions thereof. When code is
released as a series of files, a Modification is: (a) any addition to
or deletion from the contents of a file containing Covered Code;
and/or (b) any new file or other representation of computer program
statements that contains any part of Covered Code.
1.7 "Original Code" means (a) the Source Code of a program or other
work as originally made available by Apple under this License,
including the Source Code of any updates or upgrades to such programs
or works made available by Apple under this License, and that has been
expressly identified by Apple as such in the header file(s) of such
work; and (b) the object code compiled from such Source Code and
originally made available by Apple under this License.
1.8 "Source Code" means the human readable form of a program or other
work that is suitable for making modifications to it, including all
modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files,
scripts used to control compilation and installation of an executable
(object code).
1.9 "You" or "Your" means an individual or a legal entity exercising
rights under this License. For legal entities, "You" or "Your"
includes any entity which controls, is controlled by, or is under
common control with, You, where "control" means (a) the power, direct
or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity,
whether by contract or otherwise, or (b) ownership of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the outstanding shares or beneficial ownership of
such entity.
2. Permitted Uses; Conditions & Restrictions. Subject to the terms
and conditions of this License, Apple hereby grants You, effective on
the date You accept this License and download the Original Code, a
world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, to the extent of
Apple's Applicable Patent Rights and copyrights covering the Original
Code, to do the following:
2.1 Unmodified Code. You may use, reproduce, display, perform,
internally distribute within Your organization, and Externally Deploy
verbatim, unmodified copies of the Original Code, for commercial or
non-commercial purposes, provided that in each instance:
(a) You must retain and reproduce in all copies of Original Code the
copyright and other proprietary notices and disclaimers of Apple as
they appear in the Original Code, and keep intact all notices in the
Original Code that refer to this License; and
(b) You must include a copy of this License with every copy of Source
Code of Covered Code and documentation You distribute or Externally
Deploy, and Y
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 04:32:01AM -0500, Ryan Rasmussen wrote: > Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines? No. > 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will > terminate: > (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. Termination of a copyright license for unrelated patent lawsuits is completely unacceptable. > 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. The > application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the > International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. And this one is no good either. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
Ryan wrote: [snip] > 1.4 "Externally Deploy" means: (a) to sublicense, distribute or > otherwise make Covered Code available, directly or indirectly, to > anyone other than You; and/or (b) to use Covered Code, alone or as > part of a Larger Work, in any way to provide a service, including but > not limited to delivery of content, through electronic communication > with a client other than You. [snip] > (c) If You Externally Deploy Your Modifications, You must make > Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications either > available to those to whom You have Externally Deployed Your > Modifications, or publicly available. Source Code of Your Externally > Deployed Modifications must be released under the terms set forth in > this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 > below, for as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code or twelve > (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment, whichever is > longer. This is less onerous than clause 3.2 of the MPL, but might be annoying since "externally deploy" includes providing a service to clients, as defined in 1.4(b) above. For example if someone hosted a modified version of the APSL'd Darwin Streaming Server [1], would he have to provide every client with source or keep the source online for a year? 1. http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/streaming/ -Jim
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 04:32:01 -0500 Ryan Rasmussen wrote: > Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines? > > --- > APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE > Version 2.0 - August 6, 2003 > > Please read this License carefully before downloading this software. > By downloading or using this software, you are agreeing to be bound by > the terms of this License. If you do not or cannot agree to the terms > of this License, please do not download or use the software. That's not a good start: you need to agree with the license in order to download and use the software. > > 1. General; Definitions. [snip some definitions] > 1.4 "Externally Deploy" means: (a) to sublicense, distribute or > otherwise make Covered Code available, directly or indirectly, to > anyone other than You; and/or (b) to use Covered Code, alone or as > part of a Larger Work, in any way to provide a service, including but > not limited to delivery of content, through electronic communication > with a client other than You. Remember this for later... [snip other definitions] > 2. Permitted Uses; Conditions & Restrictions. Subject to the terms > and conditions of this License, Apple hereby grants You, effective on > the date You accept this License and download the Original Code, a > world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, to the extent of > Apple's Applicable Patent Rights and copyrights covering the Original > Code, to do the following: > > 2.1 Unmodified Code. You may use, reproduce, display, perform, > internally distribute within Your organization, and Externally Deploy > verbatim, unmodified copies of the Original Code, for commercial or > non-commercial purposes, provided that in each instance: > > (a) You must retain and reproduce in all copies of Original Code the > copyright and other proprietary notices "Proprietary notices"? What's a "proprietary notice"? > and disclaimers of Apple as > they appear in the Original Code, and keep intact all notices in the > Original Code that refer to this License; and > > (b) You must include a copy of this License with every copy of Source > Code of Covered Code and documentation You distribute or Externally > Deploy, and You may not offer or impose any terms on such Source Code > that alter or restrict this License or the recipients' rights > hereunder, except as permitted under Section 6. Since "Externally Deploy" can also mean "to use the Covered Code, alone or as part of a Larger Work, in any way to provide a service" (see above definition), this clause could also mean I have to "include a copy of this License" when I use the software to provide a service. What is not clear to me is: where have I to include it? > > 2.2 Modified Code. You may modify Covered Code and use, reproduce, > display, perform, internally distribute within Your organization, and > Externally Deploy Your Modifications and Covered Code, for commercial > or non-commercial purposes, provided that in each instance You also > meet all of these conditions: > > (a) You must satisfy all the conditions of Section 2.1 with respect to > the Source Code of the Covered Code; > > (b) You must duplicate, to the extent it does not already exist, the > notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code of all Your > Modifications, and cause the modified files to carry prominent notices > stating that You changed the files and the date of any change; and > > (c) If You Externally Deploy Your Modifications, You must make > Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications either > available to those to whom You have Externally Deployed Your > Modifications, or publicly available. Here it is... Forced distribution: if you use your modified version to provide a service (see above definition of "Externally Deploy") you are forced to distribute the source code of your modified version. That seems much like one of the issues with OSL (Open Software License) v2.0: this is a use restriction. Quoting Jeremy Hankins: : While the DFSG does not explicitly prohibit this, the consensus on : debian-legal is that this is non-free. > Source Code of Your Externally > Deployed Modifications must be released under the terms set forth in > this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 > below, for as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code or twelve > (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment, whichever is > longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your > Externally Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a > web site). > > 2.3 Distribution of Executable Versions. In addition, if You > Externally Deploy Covered Code (Original Code and/or Modifications) in > object code, executable form only, You must include a prominent > notice, in the code itself as well as in related documentation, > stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under the > terms of this L
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 10:53:14PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 04:32:01 -0500 Ryan Rasmussen wrote:> > 13.7 Entire > Agreement; Governing Law. This License constitutes the > > entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject > > matter hereof. This License shall be governed by the laws of the > > United States and the State of California, except that body of > > California law concerning conflicts of law. > > Choice of law clause. This is regarded as fine, IIRC. Under the proviso that the law chosen is not in itself an issue. > > Where You are located in the province of Quebec, Canada, the following > > clause applies: The parties hereby confirm that they have requested > > that this License and all related documents be drafted in English. Les > > parties ont exige que le present contrat et tous les documents > > connexes soient rediges en anglais. > > This seems a discrimination betwwen people and thus to violate DFSG#5 > (No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups). Nah, this is just a reference to a particularly stupid tenet of their law. I once saw some film or other that satirised it rather well: A group of people were driving along a road in Canada, in a lorry with "FUCK CANADA!" spray-painted on the side. They were stopped by the police and told to add a French translation. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 17:23, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > Where You are located in the province of Quebec, Canada, the following > > > clause applies: The parties hereby confirm that they have requested > > > that this License and all related documents be drafted in English. Les > > > parties ont exige que le present contrat et tous les documents > > > connexes soient rediges en anglais. > > > > This seems a discrimination betwwen people and thus to violate DFSG#5 > > (No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups). > > Nah, this is just a reference to a particularly stupid tenet of their law. It's not "particularly stupid" to expect that, if you sign a contract, it should be in a language you understand. Being an anglophone in Quebec, I've been happy for this provision many times. My French is OK, but I feel a lot more comfortable reading legalese in English. Whether a software license requires the same level of _contractual_ understanding is an open question, though. And it makes my preferences and desires part of the license. I never requested an English version from Apple; does that invalidate my license? If I were to ask Apple for a French or Mikmak or Cree version instead, would _that_ invalidate my license? > I once saw some film or other that satirised it rather well: That's unrelated, except for the fact that it has to do with French. There's no requirement that contracts have to be bilingual nor in the dominant language; just that both parties understand the language of the contract. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
Evan Prodromou wrote: On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 17:23, Andrew Suffield wrote: Where You are located in the province of Quebec, Canada, the following clause applies: The parties hereby confirm that they have requested that this License and all related documents be drafted in English. Les parties ont exige que le present contrat et tous les documents connexes soient rediges en anglais. This seems a discrimination betwwen people and thus to violate DFSG#5 (No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups). Nah, this is just a reference to a particularly stupid tenet of their law. There's no requirement that contracts have to be bilingual nor in the dominant language; just that both parties understand the language of the contract. ~ESP In just about every legal system, there is a requirement that both parties understand the contract; a contract that one (or more :) parties could not have (That's "could not have", not "didn't") understood is unenforceable, by legislation similar to 'unfair contract terms' legislation. The questions are, in my opinion, 1a: Does applying a 'choice of language' clause to everyone make a license non-free (or is it acceptable the same way a 'choice of law' clause is)? 1b: Is a 'choice of language' clause a NOOP? (is the choice of language clause implicit in the fact that the contract is only available in one language?) 2: Does applying a NOOP to a subset of people discriminate against them? 3: Does applying a Free term to a subset of people discriminate against them? In my opinion, 1a - no: If a license is only available in one language, this limits the number of languages you can accept the license in to one. I can think of many other licenses that are in English only, and still considered Free. It may well be the case that there are Free licenses in French with no English version. If such a restriction were non-free, 99.something percent of Debian would be non-free and need to be relicensed (a translation of a license to another language is effectively a different license as there is never a 1:1 correspondence between languages[1]), with potentially one version for every language in the world, and maybe even Klingon. In my opinion, this is absurd. 1b - maybe: If the legal text is in English, and it's the only one on offer, that's the language that the contract uses. In almost everywhere on earth, acceptance of a proposed contract written in English is an implicit acceptance that English is an acceptable language to use. Quebec may be the only place in which this is not the case, but it only takes one. 2 - no, though like most NOOPs it does make the license unnecessarily verbose. 3 - no: A license that discriminates against people or groups is otherwise DFSG-free for some people, but not for others (for example, a 'no commercial use' licence can't be used by enterprises, and thus fails DFSG #0 for these people). A license that is Free for some people, and also Free (albeit in a different way) for a particular subset is not non-free. A contrived (and pointless) example might be the waiving of GPL 2c for charities (or Germans, or people with one leg): 2c is Free (though obnoxious), and the GPL is Free whether 2c is present or not. A possible real-world example of 3 might be the 'don't use me in air traffic control, nuclear reactors, etc.' clause: It's Free to disclaim warranty, and it's also free to disclaim warranty, and explicitly warn the user that it is unsafe to use the software (the clause doesn't prohibit use, merely points out that it's a negligent thing to do.)). [1] - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLTranslations -- Lewis Jardine IANAL IANADD
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:23:55 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Choice of law clause. This is regarded as fine, IIRC. > > Under the proviso that the law chosen is not in itself an issue. Of course. Anyway I agree with you that it's better to state it explicitly... -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program Francesco |Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom! Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO, | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0 pgpTzTEh1chwI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 07:08:11 +0100 Lewis Jardine wrote: > 1a: Does applying a 'choice of language' clause to everyone make a > license non-free (or is it acceptable the same way a 'choice of law' > clause is)? Perhaps it does not make a license non-free. > 1b: Is a 'choice of language' clause a NOOP? (is the choice of > language clause implicit in the fact that the contract is only > available in one language?) Well, the license is only available in one language, but the clause in the APSL v2.0 talks about the License *and all related documents*. I considered strange that this clause only applies to Quebec people. If this choice of language is implicit, I would think there's no need to include an explicit clause. Or, on the other end, it would be fine to include an explicit clause that applies to everybody. I mean: do I have, as an Italian-speaking italian person, some right (granted to me by the APSL v2.0) that French-speaking Quebec people don't have? Which are these `related documents'? Could I request that they be drafted in Italian? Do Quebec people surrender this right by accepting the License? > 2: Does applying a NOOP to a subset of people discriminate against > them? No, it doesn't discriminate, it's just a bit stupid. But it has to be a real NOOP: a NOOP under any reasonable jurisdiction one can think of. > 3: Does applying a Free term to a subset of people discriminate > against them? I'm undecided about this. My first feeling is that it would still be a discrimination. Why do some people get more rights just by belonging to a group, or by living in a particular place? Imagine the following: "You can redistribute this work and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation. As en exception, if you are a king, you can redistribute and/or modify it under the terms of the X11 license." This seems unfair. But, OTOH, the copyright holder could distribute the work under the GPL to one person and then distribute the same work under the X11 license to a different person (and even distribute the same work under a proprietary license to a third person). This is perfectly fine (the copyright holder has the right to relicense as she likes) and it wouldn't undermine the freeness of the free-licensed versions. So, I don't know... What do you think? -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program Francesco |Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom! Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO, | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0 pgpoNeikoyO0t.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 08:07:22AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, IN NO > > EVENT SHALL APPLE OR ANY CONTRIBUTOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, > > SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING > > TO THIS LICENSE OR YOUR USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE COVERED CODE, OR > > ANY PORTION THEREOF, WHETHER UNDER A THEORY OF CONTRACT, WARRANTY, > > TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), PRODUCTS LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF > > APPLE OR SUCH CONTRIBUTOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH > > DAMAGES AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY > > REMEDY. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF > > INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY > > TO YOU. In no event shall Apple's total liability to You for all > > damages (other than as may be required by applicable law) under this > > License exceed the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00). > Is this OK? Probably, but I'm not clear. Looks like a no warranty clause to me. I think it's ok. > > 13.1 Government End Users. The Covered Code is a "commercial item" as > > defined in FAR 2.101. Government software and technical data rights in > > the Covered Code include only those rights customarily provided to the > > public as defined in this License. This customary commercial license > > in technical data and software is provided in accordance with FAR > > 12.211 (Technical Data) and 12.212 (Computer Software) and, for > > Department of Defense purchases, DFAR 252.227-7015 (Technical Data -- > > Commercial Items) and 227.7202-3 (Rights in Commercial Computer > > Software or Computer Software Documentation). Accordingly, all U.S. > > Government End Users acquire Covered Code with only those rights set > > forth herein. > What the heck does this do? FAR 12.211 basically means that the government doesn't have any more rights to the contained data than any member of the public. 12.212 is basically the same thing, but for computer software as opposed to data. FAR 2.101 http://www.arnet.gov/far/current/html/Subpart_2_1.html FAR 12.211,... http://www.arnet.gov/far/current/html/Subpart_12_2.html#1046504 The DFAR references seem to be similar in nature for military procurement contexts, but I've not found cites. > > Any law or > > regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be > > construed against the drafter will not apply to this License. > What the heck does this do? I don't like the look of it. It means either (a) that the license is not a contract, or (b) that the license is invalid. -- Raul
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 10:19:56PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 17:23, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > > Where You are located in the province of Quebec, Canada, the following > > > > clause applies: The parties hereby confirm that they have requested > > > > that this License and all related documents be drafted in English. Les > > > > parties ont exige que le present contrat et tous les documents > > > > connexes soient rediges en anglais. > > > > > > This seems a discrimination betwwen people and thus to violate DFSG#5 > > > (No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups). > > > > Nah, this is just a reference to a particularly stupid tenet of their law. > > It's not "particularly stupid" to expect that, if you sign a contract, > it should be in a language you understand. It's stupid that this clause has to be in the license in order to achieve that. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
Ryan Rasmussen wrote: > Is the following compliant with Debian's Free Software Guidelines? No. It seems pretty close, but there are a few deadly clauses. Gah, this is a lawyerly monstrosity > --- > APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE > Version 2.0 - August 6, 2003 So, in the part I snipped, it grants most of the right rights. However, it has a *lot* of patent language, and I'm not quite sure exactly what it grants in that regard. > 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, IN NO > EVENT SHALL APPLE OR ANY CONTRIBUTOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, > SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING > TO THIS LICENSE OR YOUR USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE COVERED CODE, OR > ANY PORTION THEREOF, WHETHER UNDER A THEORY OF CONTRACT, WARRANTY, > TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), PRODUCTS LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF > APPLE OR SUCH CONTRIBUTOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH > DAMAGES AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY > REMEDY. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF > INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY > TO YOU. In no event shall Apple's total liability to You for all > damages (other than as may be required by applicable law) under this > License exceed the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00). Is this OK? Probably, but I'm not clear. > 10. Trademarks. This License does not grant any rights to use the > trademarks or trade names "Apple", "Apple Computer", "Mac", "Mac OS", > "QuickTime", "QuickTime Streaming Server" or any other trademarks, > service marks, logos or trade names belonging to Apple (collectively > "Apple Marks") or to any trademark, service mark, logo or trade name > belonging to any Contributor. This is good. > You agree not to use any Apple Marks in > or as part of the name of products derived from the Original Code or > to endorse or promote products derived from the Original Code other > than as expressly permitted by and in strict compliance at all times > with Apple's third party trademark usage guidelines which are posted > at http://www.apple.com/legal/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html. This is not good, because it may go beyond trademark law. This is acceptable if and only if Apple's trademark usage guidelines allow everything which is normally permitted under trademark law. I think they do, but the fact that they could change at any time may make this unacceptable. This should be considered a fixable license bug, frankly. > 12. Termination. > > 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will > terminate: > > (a) automatically without notice from Apple if You fail to comply with > any term(s) of this License and fail to cure such breach within 30 > days of becoming aware of such breach; Fine. > > (b) immediately in the event of the circumstances described in Section > 13.5(b); or Fine. > > (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. Not acceptable. Suppose you, a hardware designer, sue Apple for infringing your microchip patent? > 13.1 Government End Users. The Covered Code is a "commercial item" as > defined in FAR 2.101. Government software and technical data rights in > the Covered Code include only those rights customarily provided to the > public as defined in this License. This customary commercial license > in technical data and software is provided in accordance with FAR > 12.211 (Technical Data) and 12.212 (Computer Software) and, for > Department of Defense purchases, DFAR 252.227-7015 (Technical Data -- > Commercial Items) and 227.7202-3 (Rights in Commercial Computer > Software or Computer Software Documentation). Accordingly, all U.S. > Government End Users acquire Covered Code with only those rights set > forth herein. What the heck does this do? > 13.4 Waiver; Construction. Failure by Apple or any Contributor to > enforce any provision of this License will not be deemed a waiver of > future enforcement of that or any other provision. Yeah, that's fine. > Any law or > regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be > construed against the drafter will not apply to this License. What the heck does this do? I don't like the look of it. > 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
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 09:04, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > Nah, this is just a reference to a particularly stupid tenet of their law. > > > > It's not "particularly stupid" to expect that, if you sign a contract, > > it should be in a language you understand. > > It's stupid that this clause has to be in the license in order to > achieve that. I agree; it's much more applicable for contracts. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 07:08:11 +0100 Lewis Jardine wrote: >>3: Does applying a Free term to a subset of people discriminate >>against them? > > I'm undecided about this. > > My first feeling is that it would still be a discrimination. > Why do some people get more rights just by belonging to a group, or by > living in a particular place? > > Imagine the following: > > "You can redistribute this work and/or modify it under the terms of the > GNU General Public License, version 2, as published by the Free Software > Foundation. > As en exception, if you are a king, you can redistribute and/or modify > it under the terms of the X11 license." > > This seems unfair. > > But, OTOH, the copyright holder could distribute the work under the GPL > to one person and then distribute the same work under the X11 license to > a different person (and even distribute the same work under a > proprietary license to a third person). > This is perfectly fine (the copyright holder has the right to relicense > as she likes) and it wouldn't undermine the freeness of the > free-licensed versions. > > So, I don't know... > > What do you think? As long as the license is Free for all recipients, and the license does not attempt to restrict the use of the versions to _only_ those groups (for example, "Only $GROUP may use this under the GPL; others may not, even if they get a copy from someone in that group"), then the license is Free. See also section 12e of the DFSG FAQ at http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html . - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 14:36, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 08:07:22AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: snip > > > Any law or > > > regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be > > > construed against the drafter will not apply to this License. > > What the heck does this do? I don't like the look of it. > > It means either (a) that the license is not a contract, or (b) > that the license is invalid. In Germany, contract law covers about every transaction that affects rights. Even if I give my kid 1 EUR to buy an ice cream, that's a contract between me and my child.*) As a result of this broad application of contract law there are a lot of special regulations and interpretations for these types of "everyday-contracts" such as a general exclusion of liability for contracts with an absence of consideration. Combined with the principle of Precatory Language I'd have a strong leaning for (b) with respect to German jurisdiction. (It should be noted, however, that the recent proliferation of Free Software has sparked discussion about this issue in the legal community and prevailing opinion may change in the future) *) ignore the issue of contractual capability of a child for this example Patrick
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... -- Raul
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:09:25 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: > See also section 12e of the DFSG FAQ at > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html Ah, I forgot that answer in the DFSG-FAQ... So my interpretation of DFSG#5 was too extremist: I apologize for the confusion. -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program Francesco |Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom! Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO, | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0 pgpyX1H9dqUTw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Ryan Rasmussen wrote: >>10. Trademarks. This License does not grant any rights to use the >>trademarks or trade names "Apple", "Apple Computer", "Mac", "Mac OS", >>"QuickTime", "QuickTime Streaming Server" or any other trademarks, >>service marks, logos or trade names belonging to Apple (collectively >>"Apple Marks") or to any trademark, service mark, logo or trade name >>belonging to any Contributor. > > This is good. > >>You agree not to use any Apple Marks in >>or as part of the name of products derived from the Original Code or >>to endorse or promote products derived from the Original Code other >>than as expressly permitted by and in strict compliance at all times >>with Apple's third party trademark usage guidelines which are posted >>at http://www.apple.com/legal/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html. > > This is not good, because it may go beyond trademark law. This is > acceptable if and only if Apple's trademark usage guidelines allow > everything which is normally permitted under trademark law. I think they > do, but the fact that they could change at any time may make this > unacceptable. This should be considered a fixable license bug, frankly. First of all, the changeable trademark guidelines only grant additional permission to use the trademarks, so if the requirement to not use the trademarks at all is Free, then the changeable trademark guidelines are not an issue. Without that part, the clause becomes: > You agree not to use any Apple Marks in or as part of the name of > products derived from the Original Code or to endorse or promote > products derived from the Original Code Now, quoting from the Apache license, version 1.1: > 4. The names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must >not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this >software without prior written permission. For written >permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache", >nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written >permission of the Apache Software Foundation. This has the same restrictions as the above clause of the APSL. So if the Apache license, version 1.1, is considered DFSG-free, then so should this clause of the APSL. However, the APSL does contain other non-free provisions: >> Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a >> contract shall be construed against the drafter will not apply to >> this License. > > What the heck does this do? I don't like the look of it. Neither do I; I would like to know what this means in legal terms before believing that this license is Free. >>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. The >>application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the >>International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. > > Choice-of-venue. Not OK. Agreed. - Josh Triplett
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 10:17:01PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:09:25 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: > > > See also section 12e of the DFSG FAQ at > > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html > > Ah, I forgot that answer in the DFSG-FAQ... > So my interpretation of DFSG#5 was too extremist: I apologize for the > confusion. And as you noted, we can't stop, for example, GPL license users from extending the MIT/X11 license to people through negotations we're not privy to. We should set a better example than those who overreach with their licenses and attempt to prohibit actions with no foundation for prohibition in copyright law. We should not attempt to enforce that which we *can't* enforce. -- G. Branden Robinson| Notions like Marxism and Debian GNU/Linux | Freudianism belong to the history [EMAIL PROTECTED] | of organized religion. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Noam Chomsky signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 08:07:22AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Any law or > > regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be > > construed against the drafter will not apply to this License. > What the heck does this do? I don't like the look of it. It's malevolent as hell, to say nothing of arrogant. It basically says "any protections which You (You being 'not the drafter') may have under any laws or regulations regarding the language of contracts are hereby null and void". I get the feeling judges and legislators won't take kindly to being told that their laws which apply to contracts don't apply to Apple's contracts. Those whom haven't already been bought by Apple, anyway. (Assuming this is a contract, which isn't apropos for a copyright license anyway.) -- G. Branden Robinson|Fair use is irrelevant and Debian GNU/Linux |improper. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Asst. U.S. Attorney Scott http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |Frewing, explaining the DMCA signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:09:09 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote: > We should set a better example than those who overreach with their > licenses and attempt to prohibit actions with no foundation for > prohibition in copyright law. > > We should not attempt to enforce that which we *can't* enforce. Yes, now I'm convinced and I agree. -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune Francesco |Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes? | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape. pgpTCEyyYX4tG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?
Josh Triplett wrote: > Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Ryan Rasmussen wrote: >>>10. Trademarks. This License does not grant any rights to use the >>>trademarks or trade names "Apple", "Apple Computer", "Mac", "Mac OS", >>>"QuickTime", "QuickTime Streaming Server" or any other trademarks, >>>service marks, logos or trade names belonging to Apple (collectively >>>"Apple Marks") or to any trademark, service mark, logo or trade name >>>belonging to any Contributor. >> >> This is good. >> >>>You agree not to use any Apple Marks in >>>or as part of the name of products derived from the Original Code or >>>to endorse or promote products derived from the Original Code other >>>than as expressly permitted by and in strict compliance at all times >>>with Apple's third party trademark usage guidelines which are posted >>>at http://www.apple.com/legal/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html. >> >> This is not good, because it may go beyond trademark law. This is >> acceptable if and only if Apple's trademark usage guidelines allow >> everything which is normally permitted under trademark law. I think they >> do, but the fact that they could change at any time may make this >> unacceptable. This should be considered a fixable license bug, frankly. > > First of all, the changeable trademark guidelines only grant additional > permission to use the trademarks, so if the requirement to not use the > trademarks at all is Free, It's not. > then the changeable trademark guidelines are > not an issue. Without that part, the clause becomes: >> You agree not to use any Apple Marks in or as part of the name of >> products derived from the Original Code or to endorse or promote >> products derived from the Original Code > > Now, quoting from the Apache license, version 1.1: >> 4. The names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must >>not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this >>software without prior written permission. For written >>permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] We've allowed this grudgingly, I guess; perhaps because "us[ing the names] to endorse or promote" is a rather minimal category of things, normally restricted under trademark law anyway, and only relating to advertising. I do not consider it necessarily DFSG-free, however, as it may prohibit statements in advertising like "Apache-compatible", which are permitted by trademark law. >> 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache", >>nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written >>permission of the Apache Software Foundation. This is certainly not DFSG-free and never has been. It's a major reason why we got this changed in the Apache license 2.0. *sigh* Furthermore, Debian is currently in violation of this clause, as is nearly every distributor. This is more honored in the breach than in the observance. > This has the same restrictions as the above clause of the APSL. So if > the Apache license, version 1.1, is considered DFSG-free, Which it isn't. > then so should > this clause of the APSL. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
questions for the Apache Software Foundation [was: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant?]
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:34:16AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: > > Now, quoting from the Apache license, version 1.1: > >> 4. The names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must > >>not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this > >>software without prior written permission. For written > >>permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > We've allowed this grudgingly, I guess; perhaps because "us[ing the names] > to endorse or promote" is a rather minimal category of things, normally > restricted under trademark law anyway, and only relating to advertising. > > I do not consider it necessarily DFSG-free, however, as it may prohibit > statements in advertising like "Apache-compatible", which are permitted by > trademark law. We really should contact the ASF and *ask* them if they intend this prohibition to go beyond trademark law and right of publicity. CCing [EMAIL PROTECTED] for this purpose. > >> 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache", > >>nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written > >>permission of the Apache Software Foundation. > > This is certainly not DFSG-free and never has been. It's a major reason why > we got this changed in the Apache license 2.0. *sigh* Furthermore, Debian > is currently in violation of this clause, as is nearly every distributor. > This is more honored in the breach than in the observance. Heh. Since ASL 2.0 has changed this, maybe we can ask the ASF to grant a blanket waiver of this clause (much as UCB did with clause 4 of the BSD license[1])? > > This has the same restrictions as the above clause of the APSL. So if > > the Apache license, version 1.1, is considered DFSG-free, > Which it isn't. > > > then so should this clause of the APSL. I concur with this analysis. [1] ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change -- G. Branden Robinson| Religion is excellent stuff for Debian GNU/Linux | keeping common people quiet. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Napoleon Bonaparte http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
