> Also, the trailer: > > In any event, you must be of majority age and otherwise competent to enter > into contracts to accept this license. > > fails DFSG point (5). There's no point telling me why apple added this > clause - I do understand why. Nonetheless, IMO, it fails point (5).
ditto for the 'you may not distribute copies to places where it would be illegal under us law' (aside: this does *not* say just embargoed countries; this is just cited as a specific example. if apple released cryptographic code under apsl, it would be violation of licence to export anywhere but canada, or even to distribute it -within- the us to foreign nationals. there is no real point in any of these, since they're restricted by law anyways; furthermore the export ones are restrictions that would *not* otherwise be in effect (because there could be some route to an export-restricted country that is strictly legal, that is, us->x->y, where it's legal to export the code from the us to country x, and from country x to country y, but not from the us straight to country y. i'm sure there are many such routes), and they don't give apple any apparent benefit either. generally, adding a limitation merely because it mirrors a law in the author's country is pointless. and the revocation clause *really* should be outlawed in the dfsg; i think an emergency update, before the drafted dfsg 2.0 is finished and published, to add a clause 11 which disallows revocation is in order. but then again, maybe not. --phouchg "Reasoning is partly insane" --Rush, "Anagram (for Mongo)" PGP 5.0 key (0xE024447449) at http://cif.rochester.edu/~phouchg/pgpkey.txt
