Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!wanginst!wang!ephraim
From: ephraim@wang.UUCP (pri=8 Ephraim Vishniac x76659 ms1459)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Re: Facist Licensing Agreement
Message-ID: <828@wang.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Jun-86 09:24:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: wang.828
Posted: Wed Jun 18 09:24:13 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jun-86 11:44:44 EDT
References: <1012@spice.cs.cmu.edu> <12021@amdcad.UUCP>
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA
Lines: 35

> You seem upset with the fact that Apple wishes to limit public distribution
> of software which will be construed in the public eye as 'APPLE' software
> to people whom Apple can reasonably guarantee will distribute a clean 'as
> delivered by Apple' copy of the software.
> Scenario 1:
> [Apple's bizarre license limits their liability and saves them from
>  an expensive lawsuit.]

> Scenario 2:
> Apple distributes the software without a restrictive license agreement.
> [Lack of Apple's bizarre license leads to gross copyright infringement.]
> 
>  Jim Budler

I think you're off-base here, Jim.  Taking the second scenario first, Apple
is protected by copyright laws.  The "no disassembly" clause of the license
is unrealistic, because users disassemble parts of the system every day in
the normal course of debugging.  Normally, they make no record of the
disassembled code, nor do they directly re-use it, but this still looks
like a violation of the license.  Could you debug without *ever* disassembling
or otherwise examining Apple system code?

As to the first scenario, the "no modifications" clause of the
Apple license is overly restrictive, even unenforceable, because it doesn't
say what constitutes a modification.  Adding a font?  A desk accessory?
Modifying a font?  Adding an INIT?  Editing the Finder's LAYO resource?
Tweaking an ICON or PICT?
Apple already has a licensing system for commercial distribution of the
Apple system software.  The restriction that the software to be distributed
has to come straight from Apple belongs in the commercial distribution
license, not assaulting every casual user who wants the latest system
off CompuServe.

Ephraim Vishniac
decvax!wanginst!wang!ephraim