Re: APSL 1.1

According to Ben Pfaff:
> Chip Salzenberg <chip(at)perlsupport(dot)com> writes:
> > Ben:
> > > [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> > > reasonable claims.
> > > [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> > > or that it will make a judgment.
> > > [3] There is no guarantee that Apple will ever lift the
> > > suspension.
> >
> > This pretty much matches the real world. Again, all Apple is doing
> > here is spelling out what would otherwise have to be fought over, at
> > great expense of time, money, and PR.
>
> No. Apple is taking the law into their own hands through 9.1. They
> are saying that they are better qualified to judge claims than the
> courts. Courts should be able to say ``you can't use that code
> anymore.'' The use of courts guarantees due process; Apple is not
> giving us any such guarantee here. They can be entirely arbitrary.

This view doesn't allow for out-of-court settlements, which are often
the best way to resolve contentious issues quickly.

> > Mistrusting everyone who's passed a bar exam is silly. Individuals
> > and pseudo-individuals like corportations should be trusted in varying
> > degrees according to their individual characters.
>
> I'm willing to trust the current people in charge at Apple, to some
> extent. I'm not willing to give any trust to the people in charge
> there a year from now or 10 years from now. A license like this
> doesn't give us any protection from them.

Perhaps you should consider just how much 'protection' you have with
alternative licenses. It may be a lot less than you think.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <chip(at)perlsupport(dot)com>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."