Ok, for now just a report, my opinions will come later.

Ok, I met today with the lawyer, Haim. He had a quick look at the
license. I asked him whether we can sublicense such that we won't have
the indemnification, or will have a fairer version of such. He pointed
to the "not less protective" language, and suggested we'd be better off
doing a PR campaign for Apple to relicense.

A relevant point he raised is that sublicensing without Apples
involvement, and especially any sophisticated attempts at such, have the
potential caveat that if it turns out that the new license wasn't "as
protective as", then we're violating their copyright. And further, we
won't know how unfriendly they consider our move until something bad
happens.

Just to remind people, the PR campaign approach has come up before, with
the much discussed caveat of "sleeping lions".

Daniel