Apple's Mac Developer Prorgam license agreement
Evan Schoenberg, M.D.
evan at adium.im
Thu Oct 28 21:42:21 EDT 2010
On Oct 28, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Ethan Blanton wrote:
> Evan Schoenberg, M.D. spake unto us the following wisdom:
>> Attached is the Mac Developer Program license agreement which I
>> propose to enter into as a representative of and on behalf of IMF.
>> Doing so is a prerequisite to participating in the Mac App Store as
>> well as to Adium having access to various resources that Apple offers
>> its paid-program developers.
> Thank you for providing this.
> I have no particular problem with this agreement. It does contain
> some annoying clauses, and things that I would require to have some
> oversight, but only one may be a show stopper, and that's Adium's
> problem to figure out. In particular:
> 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.
I'd have no problem taking personal responsibility for this. We wouldn't be opening up the account for use by any random Adium developers, both for legal reasons and for organizational ones .
> 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.
This is reasonable.
> 3) Apple will be receiving a license to use 'libpurple' in promotional
> materials. (p. 18) I'm not super happy about that, but neither am
> I torn up about it. They will also of course be receiving a
> license to use 'Adium' in promotional materials, but I don't view
> that as something IMF Inc should have a particular position on.
I understand the lack of enthusiasm. If we went ahead with this and Adium were approved (2 big ifs), I can't envision Apple making use of the libpurple side of the license, in any case – they advertise to typical end users, and typical end users see 'Adium' and never delve as far as the About box or developers' pages to learn about 'libpurple'.
> 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.
I'm afraid you're correct. I hadn't noticed that language previously. Let's see what the lawyers have to say before passing judgement.
>> I am not a lawyer, but I don't see anything offensive in the
>> agreement. I'd appreciate timely feedback so we can proceed, if
> Note that I believe this will require a vote, which means we have to
> give several weeks for votes to come in once we finalize on language.
Board mailing list
Board at imfreedom.org
More information about the Discussion