Re: Apple and Open Source

From: Steve Dunham <dunham(at)cse(dot)msu(dot)edu>
To: Ben Collins <bcollins(at)debian(dot)org>
Cc: Jules Bean <jmlb2(at)hermes(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, debian-private(at)lists(dot)debian(dot)org, bruce(at)hams(dot)com, rms(at)gnu(dot)org
Subject: Re: Apple and Open Source
Date: 1999-03-17 21:47:48
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

Ben Collins <bcollins(at)debian(dot)org> 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.


Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tor Slettnes 1999-03-17 22:13:35 Re: Apple claims "Open Source" trademark
Previous Message Russell Brady 1999-03-17 20:45:17 Re: Apple claims "Open Source" trademark