Re: [ APSL 1.1 available for comment.]

From: Ben Pfaff <pfaffben(at)pilot(dot)msu(dot)edu>
To: debian-legal(at)lists(dot)debian(dot)org, spi-general(at)lists(dot)debian(dot)org
Subject: Re: [ APSL 1.1 available for comment.]
Date: 1999-04-19 23:29:52
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

The URL to the APSL 1.1 is at

Still not acceptable:

9.1 Infringement. If any portion of, or functionality implemented
by, the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of
infringement, Apple may, at its option: (a) attempt to procure
the rights necessary for Apple and You to continue using the
Affected Original Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code
so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) suspend Your rights
to use, reproduce, modify, sublicense and distribute the
Affected Original Code until a final determination of the claim
is made by a court or governmental administrative agency of
competent jurisdiction and Apple lifts the suspension as set
forth below. Such suspension of rights will be effective
immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on
the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this
License. Upon such final determination being made, if Apple is
legally able, without the payment of a fee or royalty, to
resume use, reproduction, modification, sublicensing and
distribution of the Affected Original Code, Apple will lift the
suspension of rights to the Affected Original Code by posting a
notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for
implementation of this License. If Apple suspends Your rights
to Affected Original Code, nothing in this License shall be
construed to restrict You, at Your option and subject to
applicable law, from replacing the Affected Original Code with
non-infringing code or independently negotiating for necessary
rights from such third party.

i.e., if Jon Luser claims that he wrote the whole thing, not Apple,
Apple has the right to stop you from using it! Look, can't IBM's and
Apple's lawyers out there make some distinction between a claim that
has merit (as determined by a court of law) and a claim that gets
thrown out? There's no way we can accept them being able to take
software away at any time for claims lacking merit.

I don't think Apple needs any such clause at all. Any court that the
authority to make a copyright judgment also has the authority to stop
use of the affected code; no additional clause by Apple is needed.
These "take the law into our own hands" clauses must go!
"Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these."
--Ovid (43 BC-18 AD)


Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christoph Lameter 1999-04-19 23:32:50 Re: Subversive Dale?
Previous Message Ean R . Schuessler 1999-04-19 23:02:15 [ APSL 1.1 available for comment.]