-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > A more serious question is whether a minor can license his own work without > his guardian's consent. I don't think he can. I think that a court would > rule that in doing so he is giving up valuable rights and that he is not > competent to make the decision to do so. It is probable that a license > (free or not) granted by a minor is void unless he gets his guardian's > permission. > > Boy, I hope that doesn't invalidate all the code (and copyright > assignments) I wrote for FSF and Debian before I turned 18 :-)
no, because you haven't changed your mind yet... that's probably an implicit statement that you still want it to be under the current license, or something. it's also a matter of practice rather than theory, and for what it's worth, i could (read: did) take out very hefty student loans when i was fifteen, and those were -definitely- contracts, and i signed them and everything. granted this doesn't actually make it legal and i wouldn't base the dfsg on it ;) however, according to jules we minors can agree to licenses... that means apsl is definitely violating the discrimination clause by locking it away from us. also, the argument that bruce, wichert, and ian (but not necessarily in that order) made about the requiring us to report changes to apple via a specific url and thus possibly making the license nonfree when apple folds, which was correctly rebutted by osi, is -not- the reason that clause is bad; it's bad because it forces us to report changes period. we shouldn't be required to do *anything*. if we have to notify anyone, right now, it's non free. ditto if we have to make it available gratis by electronic download... basically all of 2.2(b) and (c). further, the osi rebuttal to the revocation on patent lawsuit clause is an absolute lie. there's nothing in 12.1(c) that says 'affected original code'. and i'm not too happy about anything in section 3, 5, 10, 11, or most of 13, either, though it's probably not going to disqualify the license. (10 is particularly distressing because it's not really clear if i'm allowed to call my modified versions of apple product foobar apple product foobar, or if i have to say it's something else). now i understand that the apsl is a product of lawyeritis and that the apple guys seem to be genuinely interested in fixing it, but if they're to continue using the term open source, they really must remove those non-free clauses. </rant> - --phouchg "Reasoning is partly insane" --Rush, "Anagram (for Mongo)" PGP 5.0 key (0xE024447449) at http://cif.rochester.edu/~phouchg/pgpkey.txt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.1, an Emacs/PGP interface Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNvJ0+549M+7gJHRJEQKQYACfQOVHPJDiRuKdj19qQmsFBojX11YAoOsJ XoT9+UOGBLexqpo/7LKNuoeF =gg0t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----