Re: The APSL and Export Controls
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to Jules Bean:
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > > Jules:
> > > > Must! I *must* notify apple by filling out the form. If I can't,
> > > > for any of the reasons I suggested above, I cannot distribute the
> > > > derived work.
> > >
> > > If Apple fails to make the given web site available, then it is
> > > failing to enforce the notification clause. That doesn't mean you
> > > can't distribute, it just means that the notification clause is in
> > > abeyance until Apple puts the site back up.
> >
> > It's not. Failure to enforce would be not chasing me up if I made a
> > violation. Failing to provide the web page is something else entirely.
>
> I see your point.
> OK, let's assume that 'enforcement' isn't involved.
>
> > And there's nothing in that contract which obliges apple to do so.
>
> They're entering into a contract with you. A "reasonable man"
> standard applies to contract law, IIRC. If Apple have made it
> impossible to comply with a part of the contract, they can't come
> back and complain, now can they?
>
> > > And Apple doesn't specify a time line for notification, either.
> >
> > I would say it does. It says that I 'may deploy covered code' *if* I
> > 'notify Apple'..'by filling out'..
>
> Sure, but does it say "by _first_ filling out?"
>
> > I interpret that as, until I fill out that form, I have no right to deploy
> > the code.
>
> Again using a 'reasonable man' standard, I don't think that's
> necessarily true. Could Apple possibly complain if you deploy change
> today and report them next week, *especially* if the delay in
> reporting is their own fault? If they did so, the complaint would be
> entirely specious -- which means they just don't like you, in which
> case they don't need the APSL as an excuse.
>
> I don't think this is a plausible threat to developers. Besides, just
> think of the negative PR in the very community they're trying to reach
> out to. It's unreasonable, IMO, to fear this sort of attack.
I understand your interpretation, Chip.
It's the interpretation I'd make, if I had my 'reasonably man' hat on.
However, I have my 'annoy the OSI board' hat on ;-) More seriously, I
have my 'protect free software' hat on.
It's not sufficient to argue that 'apple don't want that', or 'apple want
developers to use their software as open source software'. This isn't
about what Apple wants - it's about what the contract *guarantees*. If
the contract doesn't *guarantee*, then it becomes worthless as soon as
Apple have a change of heart.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: