According to Jules Bean:
> 2.2(c) is an unpleasant restriction, which probably violates (does
> violate, IMO) point 3 of the DFSG.
We understand the unpleasantness to some of 2.2(c), but we don't think
that it violates the OSD.
> You cannot distribute modified works under the same terms as the
> license on the original software - you must first notify Apple, on a
> particular web-page.
You need to look more carefully at the difference between the patch
and the derived work. The derived work _may_ be distributed under
original terms. Only the patch must be uploaded to Apple; if Apple's
web site is down, that item is unenforceable and thus void until the
web site is back up.
> What do you do if you don't have access to the internet? If
> accessing the internet costs you $100?
Improvise. In practical terms, Apple won't care if you use a slow
method of publication like, say, mailing a floppy disk to a friend who
has a cheap connection.
> In any event, you must be of majority age and otherwise competent to enter
> into contracts to accept this license.
>
> fails DFSG point (5).
In our opinion, it doesn't. It isn't discrimination to require that a
contract be entered into by only those competent to do so. OTOH, I
think it might be useful for Apple to drop it, since there's no point
in repeating law-of-the-land in contract language.
Thanks for the reply.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
