Re: Apple's APSL 2.0 " Debian Free Software Guidelines"-compliant? (original) (raw)

It means either (a) that the license is not a contract, or (b) that the license is invalid.

On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 04:53:11PM +0200, Patrick Herzig wrote:

Combined with the principle of Precatory Language I'd have a strong leaning for (b) with respect to German jurisdiction.

I suppose then that I should explain where I came up with (b).

First, note that Section 2 begins

  1. Permitted Uses; Conditions & Restrictions. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Apple hereby grants You,

Second, there's 13.5:

13.5 Severability. (a) If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision of this License, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable, that provision of the License will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to effect the economic benefits and intent of the parties, and the remainder of this License will continue in full force and effect. (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if applicable law prohibits or restricts You from fully and/or specifically complying with Sections 2 and/or 3 or prevents the enforceability of either of those Sections, this License will immediately terminate and You must immediately discontinue any use of the Covered Code and destroy all copies of it that are in your possession or control.

Whether this actually means that the license is invalid would be determined by the court in question. Some courts might indicate that (b) is invalid for this context and that (a) is valid...

-- Raul

Reply to: