Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 09:09:51AM +0000, Jules Bean wrote: > > For the record: 2.2 (c) of the APSL fails point (3) of the OSD, since it > > restricts distribution of modified versions (you may not do so unless you > > notify Apple). 9.1, and 12.1 (c) whilst not obviously failing any point > > of the OSD, are undesirable.
> I got a few underlying things form the license. One is that if you > distribute modified source, you grant Apple a non-retractable full > license (equivilent to theirs) to your work, and anything under your > control that you used to create the modified version (they specifically > included things used to create it, like compiler, etc.) yet they > specifically have places in their license where they can revoke it. Section 3(a) says that you grant a license equivalent to the Apple licence to third parties, section 3(b) says you grant Apple an irrevocable licence to do whatever they want with your code. I wouldn't call the 3(b) license "equivalent to theirs". I see they quote Eric Raymond of "The Open Source Initiative" on their web page - maybe SPI should retract his license to use the trademark "Open Source" for that organization. Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
