Re: Re: Sublicensing seems possible

Hi Ted.

Cees has already contacted someone within Apple.

We're aiming for a license that are at least as compatible for
commercial development as SqueakL (and more so, at least as far as
removing the fonts and the related clauses would simplify things).

What we are trying to achieve is a license that is free. The widely
accepted definitions for free software are three, as given by OSI,
Debian, and the FSF (see links below). Their definitions are nearly, but
not quite, the same, and SqueakL, strictly speaking, complies with none
of them (despite the fact that it allows us quite a bit of freedom).

This is despite the fact that SqueakL is pretty damn good, as far as
licenses signed back then by big companies go.

The importance of getting a free license as defined by external,
accepted standards, is that 
A. People should not live in the kind of fear you mention, of someone
that has power to revoke or control the software we're investing time
in. A free license ensures that, by definition (at least as far as
copyright goes).
B. We have a BetaMax license - it is almost fine, by itself, but it
isn't compatible with other stuff. For example, it prevents us from
including Squeak in the Debian distribution, which would get Squeak 
into the hands of lots of the right kinds of people.

For the definitions of free I speak about above, see
- www.debian.org/intro/free
- www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
- www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (note here that I mean merely the definition of free - I do not endorse the GPL for Squeak)

Daniel



Ted Kaehler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Folks,
> 	There are at least two dangers in messing with the Squeak license.
> 
> 1.  Apple has forgotten about Squeak.  If we bring it to their 
> attention, there is a great probability that they will try to revoke 
> the current Squeak license.  Even if they can't do this legally, they 
> can put enough doubt into air that companies and groups will be 
> hesitant to use Squeak for major projects.  I strongly discourage you 
> from contacting Apple.
> 
> 2.  One of the best features of the current license is that 
> commercial development on top of Squeak is OK.  Any move to change 
> this is a big step backwards.
> 
> (Please explain in plain English the thing you are trying to 
> accomplish by changing the Squeak license.)
> 
> Disclaimer:  I am the author of a large part of the current Squeak license.
> 
> --Ted.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Tue Apr 01 23:17:33 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 21877 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2003 23:17:31 -0000
Received: from 1.2.0.10.in-addr.arpa (HELO cdegroot.com) (10.0.2.1)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 1 Apr 2003 23:17:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 26100 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2003 23:17:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 1 Apr 2003 23:17:21 -0000
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
From: Cees de Groot <[email protected]>
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <p0510030bbaaf7892368d@[192.168.0.98]>
References: <[email protected]>
	 <[email protected]>
	 <[email protected]>
	 <[email protected]>
	 <p0510030bbaaf7892368d@[192.168.0.98]>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-4PkccJSDkeS1OF5p2bOz"
Organization: 
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 
Date: 02 Apr 2003 01:17:21 +0200
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: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 23:17:34 -0000


--=-4PkccJSDkeS1OF5p2bOz
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 19:23, Ted Kaehler wrote:
> 1.  Apple has forgotten about Squeak.  If we bring it to their=20
> attention, there is a great probability that they will try to revoke=20
> the current Squeak license.=20
>
Do you have any specific reasons for thinking that? My take on this:
- I doubt it (but I'm not an Apple insider at all), as it seems that
they use Open Source and have been reasonable cooperative in ensuring
that what they opened up really is done as Open Source; so it seems they
have a PR interest in keeping the open source community happy,
retracting a widely-used (and enhanced) product would do them more harm
than they could possibly gain;
- If this probability really is high, I rather know it now (so we can
act on it, for example by re-writing the code that Apple contributed)
than, for example, build a company on Squeak and discover that, say,
five minutes before my IPO, Apple withdrew the license. In fact, the
very statement by you as an insider that this probability is high might
necessitate reconfirmation with Apple by anyone who wants to go into
business with Squeak, as it already casts enough doubt...

> I strongly discourage you=20
> from contacting Apple.
>=20
As Daniel said, too late.

> 2.  One of the best features of the current license is that=20
> commercial development on top of Squeak is OK.  Any move to change=20
> this is a big step backwards.
>
Absolutely agreed.

--=-4PkccJSDkeS1OF5p2bOz
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+ih4A8wOTf+CYnosRAtRSAKCRdLXhUt/A+buOa7/luVZ6H+KVQQCeNp++
TT9cnfHkA4s2hfWyB8/R2G4=
=oDRw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-4PkccJSDkeS1OF5p2bOz--