re: Sublicensing seems possible

Hi Göran--

> ...what IS sublicensing?

	Sublicensing is applying, *to a derived work*, a new license which
satisfies the constraints of original work's license (and any licenses
to which the original work's license is subject).

	Two things to note:

-	Simply relicensing the original unmodified work is only an option if
you're the copyright holder.
-	If one is not the original copyright holder, I would suggest, in
addition to satisfying the constraints of the original license,
including notices that portions of the derived work are subject to
copyright, and that they are made available under license. For example,
"Portions copyright 1981-1996 Apple Computer, distributed under
license." We could of course make resources available separately for
tracking down relevant licenses. My main motivation for this would not
be for any legal concern per se, but to make recipients' legal research
a little easier. :)

	I think a good license would also encourage the recipient to obtain
legal advice.


-C

--
Craig Latta
http://netjam.org/resume
[email protected]
From [email protected] Thu Mar 27 23:17:32 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 3598 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2003 23:17:31 -0000
Received: from mxout2.netvision.net.il (194.90.9.21)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 27 Mar 2003 23:17:31 -0000
Received: from aSqueakSystem ([80.178.105.173]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.08 (built Dec  6 2002))
 with SMTPA id <[email protected]> for
 [email protected]; Fri,
 28 Mar 2003 02:17:30 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:18:52 +0200
From: Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Message-id: <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Celeste 2.0.5174
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
cc: Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]>
Subject: [Squeakfoundation]Debian-legal on squeak
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:17:33 -0000

Hey, THAT's a good idea. This is now a squeakf thread. If you really
think this is too much fun to miss, you know where we are.
There, now people can enjoy Jecel et al without this mess.
People, please answer the legal parts of the "Closure compiler"-derived
threads on squeakfoundation, not on squeak-dev.

About sublicensing - have you read the CPL version of indemnification I
mentioned? sounds reasonable enough to me that maybe the DFSG guys will
accept it, and it seems to provide pretty good protection to Apple (and
the 
rest of us). 


I marked out the relevant parts at -
http://tai42.xs4all.nl:8099/http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php

If this was the main issue Debian Legal was bugged about, this could
help. 
Andrew?

Daniel

All the issues raised by debian-legal -

Issues in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/debian-legal-200008/msg00117.h
tml)
********************
I`m not sure we can honor the preamble:

   PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT "LICENSE" CAREFULLY
BEFORE
   DOWNLOADING THIS SOFTWARE. BY DOWNLOADING THIS SOFTWARE YOU ARE
   AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT
AGREE
   TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT DOWNLOAD.

The questions is wether this kind of licenses is binding or just void.
********************
Which we could change to "if you do not agree, do not use". Would this
solve the problem? 

********************
2. Permitted Uses and Restrictions. This License allows you to copy,
   install and use the Apple Software on an unlimited number of
computers
   under your direct control. You may modify and create derivative works
   of the Apple Software ("Modified Software"), however, you may not
   modify or create derivative works of the fonts provided by Apple
   ("Fonts"). You may distribute and sublicense such Modified Software

The "Fonts" is clearly non-free. Can the package use fonts not
provided by Apple?
********************
Remove the fonts before we sublicense, remove that part.

********************
6. Export Law Assurances. You may not use or otherwise export or
   reexport the Apple Software except as authorized by United States law
   and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Apple Software was
   obtained.

Doesn`t this alone makes it non-free? I think we have discussed it
several times what it means when licenses explicite referes to some
laws which "isn`t DFSG-free". I think that it makes the license
non-free, but I don`t remember what we have agreed on.
********************

Issues raised at the FSF list, not Debian, just for reference, and it
case it might have merit
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers/2002-11/msg00115.html
********************
The fonts are definately not Free Software. The choice of law clause is
also
incompatible.
--
-Dave Turner
Free Software Licensing Guru
This is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer.

(I guess he's talking about the following -) Controlling Law and
Severability. If there is a local subsidiary of Apple in the country in
which the Apple Software License was obtained, then the local law in
which the subsidiary sits shall govern this License. Otherwise, this
License shall be governed by the laws of the United States and the State
of California. If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds
any provision, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable, the remainder of
this License shall continue in full force and effect.
********************

The real hell raiser (because it's so funny)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200106/msg00003.h
tml
********************
Choice of language (the clause saying that if you live in quebec, the
agreement is still in english)
********************

At
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200105/msg00170.h
tml
********************
  If the Modified Software contains
  modifications, overwrites, replacements, deletions, additions, or
  ports to new platforms of: (1) the methods of existing class objects
  or their existing relationships, or (2) any part of the virtual
  machine, then for so long as the Modified Software is distributed or
  sublicensed to others, such modified, overwritten, replaced, deleted,
  added and ported portions of the Modified Software must be made
  publicly available, preferably by means of download from a website, at
  no charge under the terms set forth in Exhibit A below.

I think this puts the whole package in non-free.  This precludes CD
manufacturers from selling binary CD's and then providing the source
on a separate CD that you have to pay a reasonable duplication fee
for.
********************
I don't understand how this makes it *un*free. It does mean any user can
change, because This may be irrelevant because Squeak always includes
source, 


Cees de Groot <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> --Boundary_(ID_KlDN0GcL6O4UOGY1GCzXyQ)
> Content-type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-e1meIsI0QoRt4nNTfh4D";
>  protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
> 
> 
> --=-e1meIsI0QoRt4nNTfh4D
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> [We should be moving this thread to SqF, as this whole issue is killing
> the squeak-dev list...].
> 
> The Apple guy responded positively to the idea of sublicensing. I've
> asked him for permission to share our email exchange with others, which
> I assume I'll get later today. He indicated that for Apple to look
> positively at the sublicensing thing we'd need to come up with something
> that only deviates minimally from SqueakL, just enough to fix it up for
> DFSG/OSI/... wherever we want to head.=20
> 
> So, can we decide as a community that this is OK, a cleaned-up SqueakL?
> If yes, it is probably time for some legal guys to take over :-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Cees
> 
> --=-e1meIsI0QoRt4nNTfh4D
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
> Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQA+g1EP8wOTf+CYnosRAni4AJ9XEKGAYXYIi5KSRMbQQ3xRKDqGaACbBtDa
> rIVGkI8YkePo3BhfqO1qkpE=
> =EssR
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> --=-e1meIsI0QoRt4nNTfh4D--
> 
> 
> --Boundary_(ID_KlDN0GcL6O4UOGY1GCzXyQ)
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> 
> 
> 
> --Boundary_(ID_KlDN0GcL6O4UOGY1GCzXyQ)--
From [email protected] Fri Mar 28 00:29:34 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 2158 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2003 00:29:34 -0000
Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (204.127.202.61)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 28 Mar 2003 00:29:34 -0000
Received: from goldskin.attbi.com
	(12-234-54-55.client.attbi.com[12.234.54.55])
	by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP
	id <2003032800292800100ctie0e>; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:29:28 +0000
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:17:02 -0800
From: Tim Rowledge <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Debian-legal on squeak
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Messenger-Pro/2.60a (MsgServe/2.00g) (RISC-OS/4.02)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:29:35 -0000


> ********************
> 6. Export Law Assurances. You may not use or otherwise export or
>    reexport the Apple Software except as authorized by United States law
>    and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Apple Software was
>    obtained.
> 
> Doesn`t this alone makes it non-free? I think we have discussed it
> several times what it means when licenses explicite referes to some
> laws which "isn`t DFSG-free". I think that it makes the license
> non-free, but I don`t remember what we have agreed on.
> ********************
>
To the best of my understanding this is implicit no matter what you put
in your license. Federal law stands whether you mention it or not. If
the existence of this condition makes something non-free then there's a
lot of software that is non-free; for example rather a lot of Gnu code
that was written in the US.
http://www.eff.org/CAF/law/software-export-law has lots of stuff that
seems related including specific mention of software with encryption
capabilities; Squeak may well count (DESPlugin, MD5Plugin etc).

-- 
Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
Strange OpCodes: BW: Branch on Whim
From [email protected] Fri Mar 28 00:47:32 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 6862 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2003 00:47:32 -0000
Received: from mxout4.netvision.net.il (194.90.9.27)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 28 Mar 2003 00:47:32 -0000
Received: from aSqueakSystem ([80.178.105.173]) by mxout4.netvision.net.il
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.08 (built Dec  6 2002))
 with SMTPA id <[email protected]> for
 [email protected]; Fri,
 28 Mar 2003 02:49:43 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:43:23 +0200
From: Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Debian-legal on squeak
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Celeste 2.0.5174
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:47:33 -0000

I didn't intend to request re-discussion of every single problem again -
I think some have clear solutions. For example, the export clause, which
is non-free, IIUC, by applying to non-US people a law that generally
doesn't apply to them, can be converted into something like "comply with
the law", which is probably silly, but also not prejudicial.

Actually, I missed the objection to the indemnfication clause there,
because I couldn't find the precise mail in which the objection was
raised (though I've seen it sometime today).

Anyway, that's a shopping list we need to find solutions to/be certain
enough they aren't serious (for example, the language complaint is not
serious).

Daniel

Tim Rowledge <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > ********************
> > 6. Export Law Assurances. You may not use or otherwise export or
> >    reexport the Apple Software except as authorized by United States law
> >    and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Apple Software was
> >    obtained.
> > 
> > Doesn`t this alone makes it non-free? I think we have discussed it
> > several times what it means when licenses explicite referes to some
> > laws which "isn`t DFSG-free". I think that it makes the license
> > non-free, but I don`t remember what we have agreed on.
> > ********************
> >
> To the best of my understanding this is implicit no matter what you put
> in your license. Federal law stands whether you mention it or not. If
> the existence of this condition makes something non-free then there's a
> lot of software that is non-free; for example rather a lot of Gnu code
> that was written in the US.
> http://www.eff.org/CAF/law/software-export-law has lots of stuff that
> seems related including specific mention of software with encryption
> capabilities; Squeak may well count (DESPlugin, MD5Plugin etc).
> 
> -- 
> Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> Strange OpCodes: BW: Branch on Whim
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Fri Mar 28 00:47:53 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 8973 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2003 00:47:53 -0000
Received: from mail.gmx.net (213.165.64.20)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 28 Mar 2003 00:47:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 19522 invoked by uid 65534); 28 Mar 2003 00:47:52 -0000
Received: from pD9533DA5.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO atlantis) (217.83.61.165)
  by mail.gmx.net (mp022-rz3) with SMTP; 28 Mar 2003 01:47:52 +0100
From: "Andreas Raab" <[email protected]>
To: "'Discussing the Squeak Foundation'"
	<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Debian-legal on squeak
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:47:43 +0100
Message-ID: <002201c2f4c3$a4d92710$8ef7fea9@atlantis>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Importance: Normal
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:47:54 -0000

> To the best of my understanding this is implicit no matter=20
> what you put in your license. Federal law stands whether you
> mention it or not. If the existence of this condition makes
> something non-free then there's a lot of software that is
> non-free; for example rather a lot of Gnu code that was written in the =
US.
> http://www.eff.org/CAF/law/software-export-law has lots of stuff that
> seems related including specific mention of software with encryption
> capabilities; Squeak may well count (DESPlugin, MD5Plugin etc).

Which was written in Argentia, fortunately. Now if we put the primary
download site into the Netherlands we should be pretty safe in this =
respect
;-) Good thing that SqueakMap is in Sweden, heh, heh ;-)

Cheers,
  - Andreas