Re: Re: Sublicensing seems possible

Cees,
	I have no specific information on what Apple thinks, other 
than what I heard while trying to get this license approved 7 years 
ago.
	If you go to Apple asking for a change in the license, it 
opens the whole question of why this license exists.  Apple will 
evaluate whether or not various changes are beneficial to them.
	Apple cannot legally revoke the license, but they can do 
things to "shake the tree", and put doubt into people's minds.

	If you start a company based on the current license, Apple 
has no incentive to do anything.  I would not hesitate to start a 
company based on the current license.  (My statements on the subject 
don't change anything.)

	Don't forget that Squeak is based on a license for Smalltalk 
that Xerox granted to Apple.
	Since you have seen and worked with the Xerox and Apple code 
inside Squeak, you can't generate parallel 'clean room' code 
yourself.  Some stranger would have to do it.

--Ted.

-- 
Ted Kaehler         http://www.squeakland.org/~ted/
(home) 3261 Montecito Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89120.  voice (702) 456-7930
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new 
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!', but 'That's funny...'  -- Isaac Asimov
From [email protected] Wed Apr 02 07:36:45 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 8426 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 07:36:45 -0000
Received: from ns.bluefish.se (HELO leia.bluefish.se) (213.212.22.234)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 07:36:45 -0000
Received: from [213.80.63.110] (helo=aSqueakSystem)
	by leia.bluefish.se with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 190cnc-0000wd-00
	for <[email protected]>;
	Wed, 02 Apr 2003 09:36:44 +0200
X-Mailer: Celeste 2.0.4917
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:36:31 +0100 
In-reply-to: <p0510030fbab004e52e8c@[192.168.0.98]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>	 <[email protected]>
	<p0510030bbaaf7892368d@[192.168.0.98]>
	<[email protected]>
	<p0510030fbab004e52e8c@[192.168.0.98]>
From: [email protected]
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
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: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 07:36:45 -0000

Hi Ted!

Nice to hear from you! :-)

Daniel described it quite good - we are not aiming to go in the
direction of FSF (How come a lot of you guys think this? I have no idea
where this notion is coming from.) but in the "opposite direction",
which means even more BSDish than the current license.

If you haven't followed these threads, nor the thread when Squeak-L was
brought up on OSI mailinglist, there are essentially two big hurdles in
the current license: Indemnification clause, and the export clause. The
first one makes Squeak a no-no for Debian inclusion. The second one
makes it non OSI OpenSource certifiable. The font issue is not an issue
- we can easily remove those, there are enough stuff available today to
live without them.

Ted Kaehler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cees,
> 	I have no specific information on what Apple thinks, other 
> than what I heard while trying to get this license approved 7 years 
> ago.
> 	If you go to Apple asking for a change in the license, it 
> opens the whole question of why this license exists.  Apple will 
> evaluate whether or not various changes are beneficial to them.
> 	Apple cannot legally revoke the license, but they can do 
> things to "shake the tree", and put doubt into people's minds.

Well, legally they probably can revoke it but Andrew said in another
post that is is highly unlikely since that would make Apple the first
company doing such an act on an open source project. It would hurt their
goodwill a lot. Apple is doing the open source mambo these days - it
can't afford that - but that is just my guess of course, and Andrew's.

> 	If you start a company based on the current license, Apple 
> has no incentive to do anything.  I would not hesitate to start a 
> company based on the current license.  (My statements on the subject 
> don't change anything.)

Why wouldn't you hesitate that? What if we (think anyone of us in this
community) go to Apple and the scenario you just described happens? Then
that company is a dead duck. I don't follow your reasoning.

> 	Don't forget that Squeak is based on a license for Smalltalk 
> that Xerox granted to Apple.
> 	Since you have seen and worked with the Xerox and Apple code 
> inside Squeak, you can't generate parallel 'clean room' code 
> yourself.  Some stranger would have to do it.

Well, I don't know about this. Does it really need to be clean room?
Isn't that only needed when avoiding patents etc? Just guessing, again -
a lawyer interested in discussing this would be great.

regards, Göran
From [email protected] Wed Apr 02 08:20:07 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 30052 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 08:20:07 -0000
Received: from ns.bluefish.se (HELO leia.bluefish.se) (213.212.22.234)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 08:20:07 -0000
Received: from [213.80.63.110] (helo=aSqueakSystem)
	by leia.bluefish.se with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 190dTa-0000yN-00
	for <[email protected]>;
	Wed, 02 Apr 2003 10:20:06 +0200
X-Mailer: Celeste 2.0.4917
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:19:54 +0100 
In-reply-to: <p0510030bbaaf7892368d@[192.168.0.98]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
	<p0510030bbaaf7892368d@[192.168.0.98]>
From: [email protected]
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
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: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 08:20:08 -0000

Hi again!

Forgot one little simple thing.

Ted Kaehler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Folks,
> 	There are at least two dangers in messing with the Squeak license.

Note that it may not be necessary to "mess" with Squeak-L. Squeak-L
explicitly *allows* sublicensing so that is also an approach. In fact,
this seems to be the approach that Cees has gotten some positive
feedback on.

And again, living in "fear" is not something I want to do. :-)

regards, Göran
From [email protected] Wed Apr 02 09:08:03 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 13603 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 09:08:02 -0000
Received: from 1.2.0.10.in-addr.arpa (HELO cdegroot.com) (10.0.2.1)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 09:08:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 11161 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 09:08:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 09:08:00 -0000
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
From: Cees de Groot <[email protected]>
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <p0510030fbab004e52e8c@[192.168.0.98]>
References: <[email protected]>
	 <[email protected]>
	 <[email protected]>
	 <[email protected]>
	 <p0510030bbaaf7892368d@[192.168.0.98]>
	 <[email protected]>
	 <p0510030fbab004e52e8c@[192.168.0.98]>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-eZkfTQ/hfs+DR5siP5ry"
Organization: 
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 
Date: 02 Apr 2003 11:08:00 +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: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 09:08:04 -0000


--=-eZkfTQ/hfs+DR5siP5ry
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 05:23, Ted Kaehler wrote:
> 	Since you have seen and worked with the Xerox and Apple code=20
> inside Squeak, you can't generate parallel 'clean room' code=20
> yourself.  Some stranger would have to do it.
>=20
I know. Worse, I work with VW and sometimes apply tricks from VW code to
Squeak. Or from GNU Smalltalk code. Or from Squeak to VW. Or ... Just
like most Smalltalkers out in the field (lots of them work with more
than one version).=20

Licensing-wise, Smalltalk is a complete mess - you cannot generally open
the source and still hope that all the cross-contamination you get from
there does not work... Personally, I think ignoring the matter is the
best solution ;-)

Anyway, if your statement is based on experience from 7 years ago that's
ok. Apple learnt a lot since that time, and my contacts seem to indicate
that they are not willing to change the license (simply because they're
happy with it as far as their side of the deal is concerned) but they
are willing to discuss other ways out of the 'not OSI/DFSG compatible'
impasse.



--=-eZkfTQ/hfs+DR5siP5ry
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+iqhv8wOTf+CYnosRApE3AKChCOI29mGYHT9PzMYijwN3ctKRVACbBql7
OO584m1X+EyGppP6q52OUjk=
=OEGj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-eZkfTQ/hfs+DR5siP5ry--