On Oct 3, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Chris Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 3, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Thomas von Hassel wrote: >> On Oct 2, 2012, at 7:13 PM, Chris Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> How does it stop Apple? > >> There is in fact an explaination directly on bombich.com > > It does not at all explain how GPLv3 stops Apple from including newer > versions of the same apps they already ship on Mac OS X. Apple already must > make source code and modifications available for GPLv2 software. It doesn't > require them at all to consider all of Mac OS X as licensed under the GPLv3.
Intellectual Property Law is broken. Period. Any "license" decision is a NEGOTIATION between two (or more) parties. A "take it or leave it" License is no license at all. Such a license is only resolved when and if one or the other of the parties "go to court," and assert the terms of that license have been violated. > It doesn't require them at all to consider all of Mac OS X as licensed under > the GPLv3. This is your interpretation, not that of Apple's Lawyers, nor of the court. Clearly there is "something different" about Version 3 of the GPL, otherwise we would still be at Version 2 or even Version 1. Similarly, we have no idea what "arguments" have been presented by all of the various patent law-suits against Apple. None of them are ever made public. However, it does not take much "pseudo legal thinking" to come up with ways in which any "patent troll" could head to court... even if the only justification is that they "be paid to go away." T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
