Apple's Mac Developer Prorgam license agreement

Ethan Blanton elb at
Thu Oct 28 22:14:48 EDT 2010

Sean Egan spake unto us the following wisdom:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Evan Schoenberg, M.D. <evan at> wrote:
> >> 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'.
> I actually disagree with Ethan on this point. Shouldn't anyone be able
> to use 'libpurple,' 'Pidgin,' or 'Adium' in promotional materials that
> refer to (non-forked) libpurple, Pidgin, or Adium?

Well, that's actually a very good point.  I guess it was offending me
to give an explicit license to a commercial entity, but since our
general policy is that we allow such references to the non-forked
product under an implicit license, it doesn't make much difference,
does it?

I withdraw my concern.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
Board mailing list
Board at

More information about the Discussion mailing list