sik0fewl

I believe it does say what Congress is, though, so it should be pretty obvious that the first amendment does not apply to the executive.

Stop bringing up old news. We're hating on Apple today!

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Yeah, that's why I shared it with OP 🙂. I'm pretty sure that between the two clauses I quoted in this thread that his licence does not meet the OSI definition.

Then maybe this clause is more appropriate:

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

The Open Source Definition from the OSI has the clause:

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

And most people (that actually care about such things) would insist that "open source" must meet the criteria of the OSD to actually be open source.

They took er jerbs!

It's neither free software (as defined by the Free Software Foundation) or open source (as defined by the Open Source Initiative).

No no no. It's a public API so it doesn't count!

Yeah, I remember them trying to first pin 9/11 on Saddam before it was confirmed to be Al Queda. It was weird. And then of course the made up WMD stuff.

Osama bin Laden was found in Pakistan, so maybe they didn't need to invade Afghanistan at all.

Five stars also means "this was just delivered to me and I haven't even used it yet".