🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1018@spice.cs.cmu.edu> tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) writes:
>Yes, look at the alternatives.  They could have written it so that it only
>restricted use of the software to Apple computers, and only posed the burden
>upon users of giving out copies of the license with copies of the System (so
>Commodore or Atari couldn't bypass it by obtaining a second-hand copy).  But
>they didn't; instead they let their lawyers run wild.
>
>                                        -- Thomas Newton

Yes, that is one of the alternatives, here are all of them:

	1. No restriction.

Unlikely.

	2. Restrict to Apple machines, any distribution,

Unsafe from Apple's point of view. *I* wouldn't use a system I got from
any Joe Blow on the street, or any BBS I happened to find. I will use
one off of Compuserve or GENIE, or eventually, off USENET (when a particular
site agree's to the provisions of a distributer license, not if someone was
so crass as to post it without such a license).

	3. Restricted to Apple machines, restricted to Apple licensed
	distribution.

Ideal. I know this is not what the current license says, read further.

	4. Restricted to Apple machines, restricted to Apple licensed
	distribution, restricted to 'use only' no disassembly, no
	modification, etc... 

This is what they did.

	5. Available only when bozo dealers find out they have it.

This is also available.

	6. Available for a nominal 'cost' charge with documentation,
	when dealer stock is available.

I understand this is also in the works.

	7. Available as a 'purchase' at about $70, ala' IBM DOS.

No Thank You.


Apple did not do the 'ideal', number 3. That's too bad, they also didn't
do number 7, and have you ever read the license agreement that comes with it?

Apple also offers number 5, and I understand number 6 is in the works.

This is a far cry from Fascist!

The software BELONGS to Apple! They can license it as they chose. Unlike
a previous poster who said unenforced provisions invalidate the license, the
law actually invalidates only the invalid portions. Therefore I suggest
you think of the terms realistically:

Disassembly:
	Prevailing law modifies all contracts, but does not have to be quoted
	in each of them.  If you disassemble to debug, that falls under
	the 'fair use' provisions of the law.

	If you disassemble, use the results in a competitive product, look out.

Modification:
	If you add or remove fonts, DA's, INIT's, FKEY's, bug patches, that's
	again 'fair use'. But don't give it to someone else, tell them the
	patches if you want, but let them install them themselves.

Distribution:
	That's pretty clear, like it or not. It is enforceable, if they find
	you. Don't confuse unenforceable because they can't find you, with
	unenforceable. If they catch some clod distributing the software to
	friends with no commercial gain, or some BBS with the software on it
	and tell them to stop, that's enforcement. They don't have to sue for
	a million bucks. If they don't catch them, they merely don't catch
	them.
 
They don't want you to distribute the software! They want their users to
know the software is genuine unadulterated product of Apple. You may trust
your friend who says 'I got it straight from Compuserve', or 'My friend
Joe got it straight from Compuserve' but Apple doesn't. And they don't have
to.

At least, unlike some other OS houses, they didn't tell you that you could
only have 'n' copies of the software for use on the one computer.

I'm tired of this discussion. In case you never looked, on the back of the
front cover of the Macintosh manual you got with your Mac is a Copyright
statement including the statement 'This exception [ the exception allowing 
copies for fair use ] does not allow copies to be made for others, whether 
or not sold....'. 'Nuff said.


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

 It may be stupid, it may be safe, but it's not Fascist!