Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns
Posted Dec 26, 2012 15:29 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
* You may not use this file except in
* compliance with the License. The rights granted to you under the License
* may not be used to create, or enable the creation or redistribution of,
* unlawful or unlicensed copies of an Apple operating system, or to
* circumvent, violate, or enable the circumvention or violation of, any
* terms of an Apple operating system software license agreement.
Restriction of use. Non-free.
Posted Dec 27, 2012 5:45 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
Posted Jan 14, 2013 13:19 UTC (Mon) by oak (subscriber, #2786)
Posted Dec 27, 2012 5:58 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
It's no different from saying you cannot use GPL software to illegally reproduce GFDL documentation. (For example, you cannot combine auto-generated documentation from your GPL program with existing GFDL documentation). It is not a restriction -- it is a legal fact that you cannot do that (at least in countries where the GPL and GFDL are legally valid licenses). And it is possible that users will need to be reminded of that fact. But if I include a warning to that effect in my source files, is that an "additional restriction" that renders my code non-free?
Posted Dec 27, 2012 11:22 UTC (Thu) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted Dec 27, 2012 11:43 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
Posted Dec 27, 2012 12:02 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
(*) our Software Law grants us the right of modifying legally-acquired software in any way we need, if it is with the objective of making it run in our hardware and/or operating system, for our private use. (Law 9609/98, art. 6, IV)
Posted Dec 27, 2012 18:15 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Sure it does. The OS X license agreement contains all kinds of requirements that are unenforceable in a range of jurisdictions. It's not merely a reminder of obligations you already have, it's an explicit limitation of the acts you're permitted to perform with the code.
> it is not part of the licence
It's part of the conditions of use of the source code, so it's part of the license you received the code under even if it's not part of the APSL.
> Free software isn't about the right to break existing law.
So it'd be fine for a license to forbid use by dissidents seeking to overthrow a despotic government? Obviously they're breaking the law anyway and so copyright terms are unlikely to be their biggest concern, but it seems like an unfortunate scenario for licenses to get involved with.
Posted Dec 27, 2012 18:51 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Posted Dec 27, 2012 19:15 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
Posted Dec 27, 2012 19:19 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Dec 28, 2012 2:06 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
Posted Dec 28, 2012 23:58 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
Posted Jan 2, 2013 13:48 UTC (Wed) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677)
Posted Jan 2, 2013 16:31 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 2, 2013 16:36 UTC (Wed) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677)
Posted Jan 2, 2013 16:59 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jan 8, 2013 17:04 UTC (Tue) by mgedmin (subscriber, #34497)
Posted Dec 28, 2012 2:41 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds