This is why I drink: a discussion of Fedora's legal state

Posted Feb 16, 2017 0:17 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
In reply to: This is why I drink: a discussion of Fedora's legal state by karkhaz
Parent article: This is why I drink: a discussion of Fedora's legal state

and doesn't explain why there's similar language limiting how you can use your music library program.

My best guess for that part is that a company like Apple it's a matter of simplicity. For a company that doesn't care about abstract issues like software freedom, it does no harm to include a license term forbidding people from using the software to design nuclear weapons or engage in some other nefarious activity. Nobody is going to complain about a license term telling them they mayn't do something that's either impossible or forbidden. If it's impossible, the restriction is irrelevant, and if it's illegal then the people who were going to do it anyway aren't going to let a license term stop them.

To the lawyers who draft the licenses, though, including the term is a definite benefit. On the one hand, it means they only have to have one license, the one that includes those terms, rather than multiple licenses tailored to the capabilities of the programs they're applied to. On the other hand, it means nobody has to sit down and figure out which license applies to any piece of software. That's not only tedious, but nobody wants to be in the position of getting it wrong and exposing the company to liability because they left out a restriction they should have included.