3 ms·
That sucks (but it's also a little funny, I have to admit). Here's an idea: instead of excluding Apple from the license altogether, why not insert a clause to s
by archagon 13y ago
That sucks (but it's also a little funny, I have to admit). Here's an idea: instead of excluding Apple from the license altogether, why not insert a clause to specifically prohibit putting any of the class methods on Apple's non-public selector list?
- leoc 13y agoAdd specified damages for doing so (be bold! be creative!), and mandate your choice of legal venue (obviously somewhere that the loser usually pays both parties' legal costs, and where it's relatively easy to get lawyers to work on contingency).
- bonyt 13y agoIn the US, anyway, liquidated damages clauses like this in a contract (licenses are contracts) are only enforced if they are a reasonable estimate of the damages expected for a breach when the actual damages would be hard to calculate. Penalty damages are not enforced. http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/05/what-are-liquidated-damages.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/05/what-are-liqui...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jjmanton 13y agoI'm not an expert on licensing, but couldn't Apple continue using the current version of mogenerator? A license change would only prevent them from taking latest.
- archagon 13y agoRight, but that would mean that mogenator could change the names of the class methods (or add additional ones) without having to worry that Apple would adopt them in a later update and thus render the whole exercise moot.