🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <81@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes:
>
>And of course these ``legal requirements'' don't apply to Think Technologies,

(I am not a lawyer either, so take this with a grain of salt.)

I think that David does not mean you HAVE to license your software and
charge a license fee.  Rather, if you WANT to control the distribution of
your software and WANT to make a licensing arrangement, then you must charge
a fee.

It is up to Think Technology to decide if they care how their libraries are
distributed.  They set certain requierments for using their libraries, and
Apple sets other requiements.  

>When I use Lightspeed C to develop an application I don't think twice about
>crediting Think for supplying portions of my code.  In fact, I'm happy to do
>so because there are a number of programs which I could not have developed
>without it.

Most MacApp users feel the same way.  

>So except that Apple's red seems to be turning bluer these days, what gives?
>And please don't say that it cost so much to develop MPW that you need some
>way to recoup your expenses.

As David said, license fees to don't make money.  Also, there is no license
fee to distribute programs developed with MPW.  MacApp, however, represents
a much larger body of code, and one thaty Apple considers to have more
value.  

As David also mentioned, other Apple software (such as the Finder) is
licensed; one cannot distribute copies of the Finder with out a proper
license.  

> I do want to hear Apple's side.

I think David did present Apple's side.  He also said that Apple's Licensing
department was looking into the issue.  What more do you want?




-- 
Larry Rosenstein

Object Specialist
Apple Computer

AppleLink: Rosenstein1
UUCP:  {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!lsr
CSNET: lsr@Apple.CSNET