Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

[Maxime Devos]

Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op vr 17-06-2022 om 12:00 [+0200]:
> Am Freitag, dem 17.06.2022 um 11:39 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> > The clause is also rather extra-territorial: what if $local_country
> > reforms copyright to make all sofware free, if we accepted ‘go to
> > this jurisdiction clauses’, then opponents could effectively block
> > the legally-enforced freeing of software by adding such a clause.
> No, they can't.  If $local_country makes all software free, such a
> clause would likely be illegal in $local_country and thus unenforcible.
> If Apple did try to sue a $local_country citizen, $local_country could
> sue Apple for breaking $local_country law.

It's unenforcable in $local_country, yes, but the due to the ‘Dispute
Resolution clause’, the sueing happens in California, not
$local_country, which is the potential issue I wanted to highlight. 
Though possibly ...

> While this clause exists, it might be unenforcible in practice. 
> Suppose you did violate the APSL, for instance, by linking to GPL
> code.
>
> If you are already in California, [...], but if you don't and simply
> decide to not heed their call, Apple needs to appeal to international
> law enforcement or your country in particular, whichever is easier. 
> I doubt that this will make any difference in the US [...], but if
> they have to cross either ocean, things become more difficult.

... yes, but I wouldn't know whether it will be to difficult or not for
Apple and whether $local_country would agree/disagree, so I'm inclined
to assume the worst for safety, unless informed by a reliable expert.

Greetings,
Maxime.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part