I hate to pop all your balloons, but Canada is subject to _ALL_ the US export controls. Canada has agreed to be bound by all the US rules and becuase of it receives special status. i.e. there is no export restriction for any US crypto tech to Canada.
MD: Software licenses and copright laws are two separate things. --- AC: You're literally correct, but your point is moot. True, a software license is not literally a copyright law. However, the only legal mechanism that forces people to respect software licensing terms is, you guessed it, copyright law.
Coyright law has nothing to do with software licencing. True, copyright law comes into effect if you pirate some software--but that has nothing to do with the licence.
For example, MS's licence includes a prohibition on decompiling the software, copyright law has nothing to do with this, if MS wanted to "nail" you for decompiling their code they would have to proceed through civil court on a licensing violation. The Burne Convention would have no impact.
The only thing about a license that applies under copyright is if the license grants you rights you otherwise wouldn't have.
I don't really see how this helps anyone, since the only thing apple is releasing is the source to the mach kernal, some BSD stuff and the apache webserver.
It's enough to build a fully operational web/file/email/ftp/dns server.
As soon as someone modifies the kernal to support nubus I'll be able to install it on my 8100 (which I hope to have upgraded with a G3 by then).
What it doesn't do is help Linux hackers clone the MacOS--which is what is prompting most of the Apple bashing this time around, IMNSHO.
Freedom is about making choices, and if someone down the line decides to break the law it is his choice, and responsibility to do so, and not yours, and any license that prohibits thise choice cannot be about freedom, and cannot therefore be open source in the terms most people understand it, and in which OSD defines it.
If someone is "free" to break export laws, they are certainly "free" to break a licensing agreement. Your argument is about as logical as thinking someone who is about to murder someone is going to worry that his firearm isn't registered.
apple can terminate your license at ANY TIME. Meaning when they say so you have to remove the source from your machine, yet they get to keep distributing it
And what would you suggest Apple do to protect themselves?
Go read the clause again, it only speaks to the section of the original code being contested. So if a claim is brought agaist one part it does not give Apple the ability to stop distribution of the rest of it.
"terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code"
For an example of the dollar amounts that can be involved in this kind of action just look at the ColourSync suit.
If Apple gets sued for infringment and ordered to stop distributing XYZ code, then they have to stop. Without such a clause Apple would be in violation of the court order if you kept distributing your modified version of it.
Instead of just whinning about it, why not propose an alternate that satisfies your desires while still protecting Apple in the event of a suit.
They are MS employees (or wanna-be employees)
on
MacMafia
·
· Score: 1
From InterNic...
Registrant: The Firm (DAFIRM-DOM) 11116 SE 204th Kent, WA 98031 -- Kent WA, as in 25 miles from Redmond, Kent WA. USA
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to pop all your balloons, but Canada is subject to _ALL_ the US export controls. Canada has agreed to be bound by all the US rules and becuase of it receives special status. i.e. there is no export restriction for any US crypto tech to Canada.
MD: Software licenses and copright laws are two separate things.
---
AC: You're literally correct, but your point is moot. True, a software license is not literally a copyright law. However, the only legal mechanism that forces people to respect software licensing terms is, you guessed it, copyright law.
Coyright law has nothing to do with software licencing. True, copyright law comes into effect if you pirate some software--but that has nothing to do with the licence.
For example, MS's licence includes a prohibition on decompiling the software, copyright law has nothing to do with this, if MS wanted to "nail" you for decompiling their code they would have to proceed through civil court on a licensing violation. The Burne Convention would have no impact.
The only thing about a license that applies under copyright is if the license grants you rights you otherwise wouldn't have.
I don't really see how this helps anyone, since the only thing apple is releasing is the source to the mach kernal, some BSD stuff and the apache webserver.
It's enough to build a fully operational web/file/email/ftp/dns server.
As soon as someone modifies the kernal to support nubus I'll be able to install it on my 8100 (which I hope to have upgraded with a G3 by then).
What it doesn't do is help Linux hackers clone the MacOS--which is what is prompting most of the Apple bashing this time around, IMNSHO.
People who are not US citizens are subject to the software license (through international copyright laws), but they are not subject to US law.
Software licenses and copright laws are two separate things.
Freedom is about making choices, and if someone down the line decides to break the law it is his choice, and responsibility to do so, and not yours, and any license that prohibits thise choice cannot be about freedom, and cannot therefore be open source in the terms most people understand it, and in which OSD defines it.
If someone is "free" to break export laws, they are certainly "free" to break a licensing agreement. Your argument is about as logical as thinking someone who is about to murder someone is going to worry that his firearm isn't registered.
apple can terminate your license at ANY TIME. Meaning when they say so you have to remove the source from your machine, yet they get to keep distributing it
And what would you suggest Apple do to protect themselves?
Go read the clause again, it only speaks to the section of the original code being contested. So if a claim is brought agaist one part it does not give Apple the ability to stop distribution of the rest of it.
"terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code"
For an example of the dollar amounts that can be involved in this kind of action just look at the ColourSync suit.
If Apple gets sued for infringment and ordered to stop distributing XYZ code, then they have to stop. Without such a clause Apple would be in violation of the court order if you kept distributing your modified version of it.
Instead of just whinning about it, why not propose an alternate that satisfies your desires while still protecting Apple in the event of a suit.
From InterNic...
Registrant:
The Firm (DAFIRM-DOM)
11116 SE 204th
Kent, WA 98031 -- Kent WA, as in 25 miles from Redmond, Kent WA.
USA
Domain Name: DAFIRM.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Colcord, Doug (DC4582) doug@FOXINTERNET.NET
425-562-2900
Billing Contact:
Colcord, Doug (DC4582) doug@FOXINTERNET.NET
425-562-2900
Record last updated on 05-May-97.
Database last updated on 11-Mar-99 11:03:46 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.FOXINTERNET.NET 208.8.204.15
NS2.FOXINTERNET.NET 208.8.204.11
-------------------------------
The sad part isn't that this site was PAID for by MicroSoft, the sad part is it wasn't even funny.
Commander Fajita, I though you had better taste than this...