forums at david-woolley.me.uk
Thu Jun 19 03:00:52 EDT 2014
On 19/06/14 00:39, Dave Warren wrote:
> Apple's agreement is, in my opinion, ultimately non-binding in this case
> since the user has additional rights from an alternate source. If the
I haven't read Apple's terms in detail, but most commercial "licences"
aren't licences, but actually contracts. Contracts, if validly formed,
can require you to not exercise rights you might already have. (A
common example, and one quite similar, is that magazine publication
agreements almost always forbid publication in any other magazine.)
Also, I believe one of the issues is that Apple become a commercial
distributor of the software, so anyone using the Apple store is knowing
supplying to someone who intends to breach the GPL.
> different than software which is made available under multiple licenses
I very much doubt that the Pidgin developers could get the clearances
needed to dual licence.
More information about the Support