🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1014@spice.cs.cmu.edu> tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) writes:
>Re: Scenario 1
>
>Would not the fact that the software had been modified by an outsider be an
>adequate defense?  If Joe Random put down a libelous statement in a copy of
>
I doubt it. Unlike the statement in Niven's book, the only visable attributes
which define to the user that it is, or is not the true Apple system/finder
is the about, and getinfo boxes. There is no way to tell an unmodified
version from a modified version. The size and modified dates vary as fonts
and DA's are changed.

>Re: Scenario 2
>
>Did you see me objecting to the provisions that limit use of the software
>to Apple computers?  There is an intermediate point between making things

I think unlimited distribution is legally unlimited distribution. If I give
Joe Blow a copy and he is allowed to give Jane Doe a copy the software is
no longer distributed by Apple and therefore may be considered in
unlimited distribution. I'm not a lawyer, and Apple's lawyers obviously feel
that the line between unlimited distribution and public domain is too
undefined.

It all doesn't matter. Apple owns the software, they have made what they,
the owner of the software, consider safe distribution policy. *I* *KNOW* that
the system/finder that *I* got from Compuserve is good. If I were to
violate my license and give it to someone, there is no way that they could
know that to the same degree.  If they then gave it to someone what would they
know about the pedigree of the software? *NOTHING*!!!

I think Apple's policy is a SAFE one, perhaps overly cautious, but in no
way deserves to be called Fascist.


-- 
 Jim Budler
 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
 (408) 749-5806
 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb
 Compuserve:	72415,1200