According to Ben Pfaff:
> Maybe you think that the last clause in that paragraph, ``If Apple
> suspends Your rights... nothing in this License shall be construed to
> restrict You... from replacing the Affected Original Code...'', means
> that you have some additional rights.
No, I don't think that. But it clarifies Apple's intent not to get in
your way if you make independent arrangements (the part you didn't
quote). This is better than simply saying nothing.
> [0] There is no distinction between bogus claims and
> reasonable claims.
> [2] There is no guarantee that a court will ever be involved
> or that it will make a judgment.
> [3] There is no guarantee that Apple will ever lift the
> suspension.
This pretty much matches the real world. Again, all Apple is doing
here is spelling out what would otherwise have to be fought over, at
great expense of time, money, and PR.
If you don't like it, take it up with Congress and the USPTO. I'm
entirely serious in this. I'm not dismissing you. I'm pointing to
the real culprits that have made this clause of the APSL *necessary*.
> > Are you a lawyer?
>
> No. Are you willing to trust lawyers? I'm not.
Mistrusting everyone who's passed a bar exam is silly. Individuals
and pseudo-individuals like corportations should be trusted in varying
degrees according to their individual characters.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
