According to John Hasler:
> Chip Salzenberg writes:
> > Given the way patent law works, could it not be argued that the lack of a
> > similar phrase in the GPL is actually a defect in the GPL?
>
> No.
OK, point taken. The GPL is a tool of social change, and as such, it
uses patent threats as levers.
> > If Apple doesn't have *some* way to discontinue (alleged) infringement,
> > it can't protect itself against aggressive deep-pockets attacks.
>
> Apple has a simple way to discontinue infringement: they can discontinue
> use and distribution.
That may not be good enough for Apple's protection. I don't think it's
a coincidence that IBM's and Sun's lawyers have also seen a need for
termination/suspension. I think it's a deep-pockets-more-caution issue.
> > Note also that the license is only *suspended*, and the APSL takes
> > explicit notice of your right to carry on as *you* see fit, even if Apple
> > takes a cautious path on a given disagreement.
>
> It does no such thing.
I meant this:
>>> If Apple suspends Your rights to Affected Original Code,
>>> nothing in this License shall be construed to restrict You,
>>> at Your option and subject to applicable law, from [...]
>>> independently negotiating for necessary rights from such
>>> third party.
> > Are you a lawyer?
> Are you? If not, what is your point?
Just that a non-lawyer's opinion that some legal language is not
necessary carries less weight than a lawyer's opinion that it is.
> > I trust that Apple's lawyers aren't shadowboxing.
> I trust that Apple's lawyers are advancing Apple's interests.
Touche'.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
