Re: Re: Sublicensing seems possible

On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 17:33, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> Cees, did you get an answer about posting your conversation log with
> Apple?
> 
Yes, I can share it in a limited way on a need-to-know basis - IOW
posting it or just generally sharing it with the community is out of the
question. So I'm waiting for someone to announce that we have access to
a legal guy with whom we can than go through the details. 

Now, I'm not sure that the community will not come up with a legal guy
(I will not, simply because a) there aren't a lot of legal people around
here, and b) even if I could find a fitting one, they work in an
entirely different legal system), given the deafening silence that is
usually the result of direct questions in this area, but we'll see..

Basically, if we want to pursue this negotiation path with Apple, the
work is clearly cut-out: prepare a version of SqueakL that complies with
OSI/DFSG(*) and get advice on the sub-licensing 'trick'. Both require
the input of a pro, and without a pro around I'm not going to spend more
time. So, the main question at the moment: where are we going to find a
lawyer that wants to take this up pro bono?

(*) one community decision: in case either OSI or DFSG is much easier to
attain than the other, is either one satisfactory?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+ib/18wOTf+CYnosRAnWHAJ91/8KhAbq1IbCytoC58OE4Mn1f+wCggB9G
Fhz6srGV7NtsmP6IBjSyU20=
=rMXz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----