Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

TL;DR; Tempest in a teapot.

The author missed the definition of "Work" until after they published the article. "Work" is clearly defined in the EULA as the output of the Apple software.

The Apple software in question is the last encoding step in a workflow to publish iBooks. If you aren't publishing an iBook, use a different tool for that last step.



Bingo. You own the content you give Author, Apple gets exclusive distribution rights to the output of the software they provide free for the sole purpose of creating proprietary files for Apple's distribution service. There is nothing in the agreement claiming exclusivity to the content you put INTO the software, only what comes out of it.


Where is that clear definition of "Work"?


"If you charge a fee for any book or other work you generate using this software (a “Work”)"

Second paragraph of the EULA. Unless my English is bad, that defines a "Work", capital W, to be the generated output of the software.


That's just an informational note. It does not appear to carry any legal weight, but is just a tl;dr for what they think is an important clause.


The license is the entire document, not selected bits and pieces of it.


But does that piece determine the meaning of the word for the entire rest of the document?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: