Apple's Mac Developer Prorgam license agreement

[Mark Doliner]

I just read the document--sorry for being way late.  I basically agree
with Ethan.  I think the agreement is mostly fine with the exception
of a few points in the EULA addendum (Exhibit A to Schedule 1).  Notes
below.

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Ethan Blanton <elb at pidgin.im> wrote:
> Evan Schoenberg, M.D. spake unto us the following wisdom:

*snip*

> 1) We are required to oversee the usage of Apple Development
>   software/documentation/etc. by those authorized by IMF Inc to use
>   said materials.  (p. 5, 3.1c) In my mind, this simply means that we
>   need to make sure that access to the paid materials is kept on a
>   very short leash.  I would make this a condition of entry.  (For
>   example, that you oversee such materials personally, Evan.) I don't
>   want IMF Inc to have liability because some random Adium developer
>   I don't know posts a PDF on a blog.

The definition of Authorized Developers on page 2 states, "Your
faculty and staff who ... (c) to the extent such individuals will have
access to Apple Confidential Information, each have written and
binding agreements with You to protect the unauthorized use and
disclosure of such Apple Confidential Information."

The same requirement is mentioned again in section 10.2 (page 12).  My
interpretation is that if we want to
- share Apple Confidential information obtained under the terms of
this agreement, or
- share Apple Software given to us under the terms of this agreement, or
- allow someone to use services bound by the terms of this agreement
then we need a signed written agreement with the people we share with.

> 2) Apple can change the agreement at any time, and the new agreement
>   must be accepted before development may continue under the program.
>   (p. 9) I would require that IMF Inc approve this each time, it
>   cannot just be rubber stamped.

I agree.  IMF should approve changes.

*snip*

> 4) (potential show stopper) While Apple says that FOSS is acceptable
>   and makes reasonable FOSS protections, the EULA addendum says that
>   "The license granted to the end-user for th Licensed Application
>   must be limited to a non-transferable license to use the Licensed
>   Application on a Mac Product that the end user owns and
>   controls[...]".  (p. 22) This is incompatible with the GPL.  I
>   don't think Apple will allow a GPL product to be shipped via the
>   App Store.

That's requirement #2 of exhibit A, and I agree, I think it
incompatible with the GPL.

Other parts of exhibit A that I think are problematic:

Requirement #1: "The EULA may not provide for usage rules for Licensed
Applications that are less restrictive than the Usage Rules set forth
for Licensed Applications in, or otherwise be in conflict with, the
terms of service applicable to the Mac App Store as of the Effective
Date."
What Usage Rules are they referring to?  I think we'd need to review
them in order to decide whether to submit to this license agreement.

Requirement #9: "You must state in the EULA that the end-user must
comply with applicable third party terms of agreement when using Your
Application."
I don't understand this sentence--what third party terms are they
referring to?  I don't think we can comply with this section because
it would mean adding an additional requirement to our license, and I
don't think we can do that.

*snip*

I'll be interested in hearing what Karen says, but I'm not comfortable
agreeing to this license because of the three requirements from
exhibit A that I mentioned above.  Furthermore, I don't understand
Apple's reasoning for the requirements.  From my point of view they
seem overbearing.

--Mark