APSL 1.1

[Chip Salzenberg]

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. -      <chip at perlsupport.com>
      "When do you work?"   "Whenever I'm not busy."