All in all, though, it's a pretty robust defense, both of its position and of its members. Time will tell, however. I don't know if there's some technical legal reason for this. Unfortunately, the way they worded it does make the license seem useless to me. As a former practicing attorney, I note that one of the worst things a legal document can be is ambiguous.
Ambiguity leads to misunderstandings and law suits.
Apple has a problem because some pretty highly respected people in the OSS movement think the APSL is bad while others do not. That in large part is because the license is ambiguous. Apple's long standing and mostly continuing closed source MO may also be coloring peoples perceptions, but that's fair because it's true and relevant. The burden of proof is on the leopard to prove its spots have changed. Only Apple can clear this up.