Walter Landry wrote: > "Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> >> The permission that matters to us comes two sentences later: >> >> "You may distribute and sublicense such Modified Software only under the >> terms of a valid, binding license that makes no representations or >> warranties on behalf of Apple, and is no less protective of Apple and >> Apple's rights than this License." That's an "only". I read that as a restriction on the permissions granted earlier, not as a separate grant of permission. If it's a separate grant of permission, it doesn't need the 'only'.
Then there's the question of what a "binding" license is; who is it supposed to bind? Shall we assume that it binds those who distribute only, in which case it's all good? > This suggests that we could distribute Squeak under any more > restrictive license. But it is rather vague. > > Regards, > Walter Landry > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
