3 ms·

"This line was probably required to get some manager at Apple to sign off on this." I agree here :) "Apple logo or the word 'iPhone' didn't cause irreparable d

"This line was probably required to get some manager at Apple to sign off on this." I agree here :) "Apple logo or the word 'iPhone' didn't cause irreparable damage to their trademark." As I said, this is a problem either no company who uses the BSD license has or all of them have it. "But I'd rather have a company add _one line_ to an already minimal license than not open source at all out of this fear." I don't agree here at all. Because this is how we ended up with the mess that caused things like open source license certification by OSI to exist in the first place. Random companies would add random one-liners to licenses, like "don't use in nuclear reactors", etc. Down this path is madness, and it starts with good intentions.

derefr 12y ago
It's probably a problem all of them have. Apple is just the only company that cares enough to make a big deal about it in advance, rather than imagining that they'll just let things slide for now and argue post-facto in some later court case that the license should be read as not granting trademarks. In other words, this isn't like the nuclear reactors bit—this is something that could actually belong in the BSD license, and where when merging BSD-licensed software with Apple!BSD-licensed software, probably the Apple!BSD would keep winning, and the trait would end up at fixation, rather than "speciating" the license.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  1. I strongly disagree with the idea that they are the only ones who would consider it a large deal enough to do something if it was a real fear. It's somewhat ridiculous to believe that, say, Google or Facebook, wouldn't do the same if they thought it was a concern. 2. The part about "having to argue post-facto" would be a valid line of argument if, as i pointed out, there wasn't already plenty of precedent that shows their fear is completely and utterly unwarranted. In fact, i doubt they could even cite a single time a judge even considered this a non-crazy argument. In other words, this in fact, is exactly like the nuclear reactors bit. It doesn't actually belong in the license, because if was a real concern: A. There would be at least some case somewhere that concerneed folks. B. After 20+ years of BSD licenses, it'd already be there

derefr 12y ago

It's probably a problem all of them have. Apple is just the only company that cares enough to make a big deal about it in advance, rather than imagining that they'll just let things slide for now and argue post-facto in some later court case that the license should be read as not granting trademarks. In other words, this isn't like the nuclear reactors bit—this is something that could actually belong in the BSD license, and where when merging BSD-licensed software with Apple!BSD-licensed software, probably the Apple!BSD would keep winning, and the trait would end up at fixation, rather than "speciating" the license.

DannyBee 12y ago
1. I strongly disagree with the idea that they are the only ones who would consider it a large deal enough to do something if it was a real fear. It's somewhat ridiculous to believe that, say, Google or Facebook, wouldn't do the same if they thought it was a concern. 2. The part about "having to argue post-facto" would be a valid line of argument if, as i pointed out, there wasn't already plenty of precedent that shows their fear is completely and utterly unwarranted. In fact, i doubt they could even cite a single time a judge even considered this a non-crazy argument. In other words, this in fact, is exactly like the nuclear reactors bit. It doesn't actually belong in the license, because if was a real concern: A. There would be at least some case somewhere that concerneed folks. B. After 20+ years of BSD licenses, it'd already be there