[thetrendycyborg]

They can charge for the software. What he's talking about is if you produce a thing, no matter how you produce it, you have the right to determine what you want to do with that product.

No one can say this tool must be used in this way so we make money. If they need to make money off the tool, they should be charging for it in some way.

[nirvana]

>What he's talking about is if you produce a thing, no matter how you produce it, you have the right to determine what you want to do with that product.

The thing produced here is a derivative work that contains Apple created code and content.

Taking your words and changing the context produces this:

"if you produce a [some software], no matter how you produce it, [or who elses code you include with it.] you have the right to determine what [license agreement you use]."

See how that doesn't work?

[ootachi]

So Microsoft should own the rights to distribute Harry Potter because it was composed with Word? After all, J.K. Rowling surely benefited from Word's spell checker.