Re: Re: Sublicensing seems possible

Folks,

I am
glad to hear that Apple seems to be cooperative.

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.

Glad to
hear this.

The Apple Software is pre-release, and
untested, or not fully tested.

The 'Font' language is another area of
'state' which can change.

Thank
you for the list of things wrong with the current license. I
like details. Please be more specific about what you'd like to
see changed.

Exactly
what is the problem with indemnification? What is wrong with the
licensee promising not to sue Apple, given that the system is not
coming directly from Apple? If we added a clause saying that the
licensee promises not to sue the Oxfam relief fund, would that make
the license bad?

On the
subject of export, AFAIK everything licensed by any US company is
subject to the restrictions listed in this clause.

Apple
Software may not be exported or reexported (i) into (or to a national
or resident of) any U.S. embargoed country or (ii) to anyone on the
U.S. Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated Nationals or
the U.S. Department of Commerce's Table of Denial
Orders.

While you might remove this clause, all software generated in the
US is subject to it. Apple can't change that. Any Debian
or OSI OpenSource licensed software that originated in the US has the
same restriction.

What other parts are you proposing to change?

--Ted.

From [email protected] Wed Apr 02 21:57:12 2003
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 32275 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 21:57:12 -0000
Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (194.90.9.20)
by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 21:57:12 -0000
Received: from aSqueakSystem ([80.178.108.27]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.08 (built Dec 6 2002))
with SMTPA id for
[email protected]; Thu,
03 Apr 2003 00:57:11 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 00:10:08 +0200
From: Daniel Vainsencher
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation

Message-id:
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

List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation

List-Unsubscribe: ,

List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,

X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 21:57:13 -0000

Ted, first let's make it clear we're not inventing any of the issues -
these are things that turn up when you present this license to people
that have put a lot of time into thinking about free licenses. Using
external references to judge where we stand is not unreasonable. If you
care about where my position comes from, please read the below
references, I'm sort of tired of explaining this.

Details.

The big things (as far as Debian is concerned, I haven't read OSI's
stuff, but I suspect it's a subset) -
1. Indemnification - the problems Debian have mentioned are - it is too
wide (I pay for any suit brought by users to Apple? regardless of what I
do?) and it is unfair (Apple should be protected from being sued over
Squeak, since it releases it non-commercially. True. Why should this be
at the expense of other non-commercial distributors?). DFSG states that
licenses should be fair (see www.debian.org/social_contract - "5. No
Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" ). You can see an example of
indemnification language that's more general and fair at
www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php.

2. Fonts - pretty obvious and not hard to fix once they're removed.

3. Export - mentions Apple and US (any reason non-USers should be
specifically subject to US laws, any more than is implied by
international treaties?). Can be generalized so it says something like
"complies with law".

Smaller things -
1. Choice of law - again, mentions Apple specifically, and discriminates
against everyone else.

2. Someone whined that it discriminates Quebecians by requiring them to
deal with a contract in English. Big flame war. Not a serious objection.

Daniel

Ted Kaehler wrote:
>
> --Boundary_(ID_qfGHNesfNEXc7SLju4EUeQ)
> Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>
>
>
>
Folks,

>
I am
> glad to hear that Apple seems to be cooperative.

>

>
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.

>

>
Glad to
> hear this.

>

>
The Apple Software is pre-release, and
> untested, or not fully tested.

>

>
The 'Font' language is another area of
> 'state' which can change.

>

>
Thank
> you for the list of things wrong with the current license. I
> like details. Please be more specific about what you'd like to
> see changed.

>

>
Exactly
> what is the problem with indemnification? What is wrong with the
> licensee promising not to sue Apple, given that the system is not
> coming directly from Apple? If we added a clause saying that the
> licensee promises not to sue the Oxfam relief fund, would that make
> the license bad?

>

>
On the
> subject of export, AFAIK everything licensed by any US company is
> subject to the restrictions listed in this clause.

>

>
Apple
> Software may not be exported or reexported (i) into (or to a national
> or resident of) any U.S. embargoed country or (ii) to anyone on the
> U.S. Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated Nationals or
> the U.S. Department of Commerce's Table of Denial
> Orders.

>

>
While you might remove this clause, all software generated in the
> US is subject to it. Apple can't change that. Any Debian
> or OSI OpenSource licensed software that originated in the US has the
> same restriction.

>

>
What other parts are you proposing to change?

>

>
--Ted.

>

>
>
>
> --Boundary_(ID_qfGHNesfNEXc7SLju4EUeQ)
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>
> --Boundary_(ID_qfGHNesfNEXc7SLju4EUeQ)--
From [email protected] Wed Apr 02 21:57:13 2003
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 32313 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 21:57:13 -0000
Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (194.90.9.20)
by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 21:57:13 -0000
Received: from aSqueakSystem ([80.178.108.27]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.08 (built Dec 6 2002))
with SMTPA id for
[email protected]; Thu,
03 Apr 2003 00:57:11 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 00:14:09 +0200
From: Daniel Vainsencher
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation

Message-id:
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

List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation

List-Unsubscribe: ,

List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,

X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 21:57:13 -0000

And the fact that the world doesn't want to buy iraqi oil doesn't limit
the iraqies, it just limits the world, right?

You don't want kids in schools to have Squeak preinstalled on their
computers, simply because it is part of DebianJr/DebianEdu/Debian
multimedia project (I can never remember their precise name)?

You don't want the hoards of people that contribute their programming
time to free software in stiffer/poorer languages to feel free and safe
to contribute Squeak code?

I do.

Daniel

Gary Fisher wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cees de Groot"
> To: "Discussing the Squeak Foundation"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
>
> > . . . but they are willing to discuss other ways out of the
> > 'not OSI/DFSG compatible' impasse.
>
> Pardon my asking, but in what way is this an 'impasse' from the Squeak side?
> The fact Debian can't include Squeak in their distributions limits Debian,
> not Squeak (which is in fact regularly released in deb packages) while the
> lack of OSI Certification is far from the biggest hurdle to wide adoption of
> Squeak/Smalltalk. Stripping Squeak just to get a nod from these outside
> standards groups -- which appear themselves to have no particular, specific
> interest in adding Squeak to their own lists -- seems a bit
> self-destructive. The current license is incredibly generous; why rock the
> boat?
>
> Gary Fisher
>
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Wed Apr 02 21:57:13 2003
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 32355 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 21:57:13 -0000
Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (194.90.9.20)
by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 21:57:13 -0000
Received: from aSqueakSystem ([80.178.108.27]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.08 (built Dec 6 2002))
with SMTPA id for
[email protected]; Thu,
03 Apr 2003 00:57:12 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 00:28:12 +0200
From: Daniel Vainsencher
Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation

Message-id:
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Celeste 2.0.5174
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation

List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation

List-Unsubscribe: ,

List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,

X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 21:57:14 -0000

Andreas, let's review the facts.

Cees has already talked to Apple. You may want to undo that, but that's
impossible, whatever you convince us of. The good news is, on the
surface, they don't seem that unfriendly. Which may be a ruse, but then
life itself might be an illusion, it's empty speculation.

The people that have mentioned the sleeping lions are Alan, Ted, Andrew
(IIRC). Goran and I were *answering that*. I agree there is some risk,
and as Alan and yourself have put it, there always is. Fine, to the extent
to which we have no choice, we'll live with it.

No current Guides have expressed a wish to entangle the Squeak image
with GPLed code. We couldn't stop other people from posting such code on
SM if we wanted, but that's fine, there doesn't be any reason to do so.

What we (or at least I) do wish to do, is end up with a license that's
up to the standards accepted by free software/open source developers
today. This both to broaden cross-fertilization with them, and benefit
from what wisdom those standards encode (including a lot of lawyer
time).

Those standards are up at www.debian.org (my personal favorite) and
www.opensource.org.

Now, what exactly about this picture don't you like? can you explain
what you would want different?

Daniel

Andreas Raab wrote:
> Gšran,
>
> > I know that. What I meant is that I think it is better to
> > approach Apple and straighten this out once and for all.
>
> The "once and for all" part is exactly where you are wrong. Even if Apple
> would change the license there is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent
> them from *trying* to revoke it a couple of years down the road. Don't you
> think that Squeak-L was considered a "once and for all" solution at the time
> it was written?
>
> > This way I would know that we have a license that Apple
> > approves of
>
> Excuse me but Apple _has_ approved of the current license - they made it!
>
> > and that may also turn out slightly better than the one
> > we have now. Of course, they can change their minds in
> > the future after that, but that would be much less
> > likely.
>
> And on what exactly do you base your opinion here? Squeak-L was made for all
> the purposes you are mentioning, done by Apple. Now, a couple of years
> later, you state some concerns which are based on no facts whatsoever. So if
> we take this a couple of years down the road then someone else might have
> very similarly unfounded objections. This is just paranoid.
>
> > The alternative, which Ted implies - is that the Lion is
> > sleeping and we shouldn't disturb it because the Lion may
> > be in a bad mood. *If* Ted is right about the "mood" part
> > - which information from Cees contradicts - then I would
> > like a confrontation now, instead of putting more time into
> > Squeak and "live in fear" of the Lion awakening.
>
> Yeah, and play the bull in the china shop. Great idea.
>
> > More clear what I meant?
>
> It is clear what you mean but that doesn't mean I agree with a single word
> you're saying. It is paranoid no matter how you put it and you seem to be
> willing to risk an open confrontation out of those (completely unjustified)
> objections. And if you guys screw this up then the entire community will
> have to live with the consequences of your paranoia.
>
> - Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Wed Apr 02 22:07:29 2003
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 2985 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 22:07:29 -0000
Received: from mail.gmx.net (213.165.64.20)
by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 22:07:29 -0000
Received: (qmail 29065 invoked by uid 65534); 2 Apr 2003 22:07:28 -0000
Received: from p50882B9B.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO atlantis) (80.136.43.155)
by mail.gmx.net (mp020-rz3) with SMTP; 03 Apr 2003 00:07:28 +0200
From: "Andreas Raab"
To: "'Discussing the Squeak Foundation'"

Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 00:07:22 +0200
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
In-Reply-To:
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation

List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation

List-Unsubscribe: ,

List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,

X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 22:07:33 -0000

Daniel,

I apologize for the last message - it was written too hasty. I have in =
the
meantime communicated with G=F6ran privately (as it involved a number of
things which I didn't feel adequate for a public list). I don't want to =
undo
anything here - all I want to is that you carefully consider the pros =
and
cons of what you're planning on doing and. And I'm sure you will do =
this.

Cheers,
- Andreas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]=20
> [mailto:[email protected]]=20
> On Behalf Of Daniel Vainsencher
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 12:28 AM
> To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
> Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
>=20
>=20
> Andreas, let's review the facts.
>=20
> Cees has already talked to Apple. You may want to undo that,=20
> but that's
> impossible, whatever you convince us of. The good news is, on the
> surface, they don't seem that unfriendly. Which may be a=20
> ruse, but then
> life itself might be an illusion, it's empty speculation.
>=20
> The people that have mentioned the sleeping lions are Alan,=20
> Ted, Andrew
> (IIRC). Goran and I were *answering that*. I agree there is some risk,
> and as Alan and yourself have put it, there always is. Fine,=20
> to the extent=20
> to which we have no choice, we'll live with it.
>=20
> No current Guides have expressed a wish to entangle the Squeak image
> with GPLed code. We couldn't stop other people from posting=20
> such code on
> SM if we wanted, but that's fine, there doesn't be any reason=20
> to do so.
>=20
> What we (or at least I) do wish to do, is end up with a license that's
> up to the standards accepted by free software/open source developers
> today. This both to broaden cross-fertilization with them, and benefit
> from what wisdom those standards encode (including a lot of lawyer
> time).
>=20
> Those standards are up at www.debian.org (my personal favorite) and
> www.opensource.org.=20
>=20
> Now, what exactly about this picture don't you like? can you explain
> what you would want different?
>=20
> Daniel
>=20
> Andreas Raab wrote:
> > G=B9ran,
> >=20
> > > I know that. What I meant is that I think it is better to=20
> > > approach Apple and straighten this out once and for all.
> >=20
> > The "once and for all" part is exactly where you are wrong.=20
> Even if Apple
> > would change the license there is absolutely nothing you=20
> can do to prevent
> > them from *trying* to revoke it a couple of years down the=20
> road. Don't you
> > think that Squeak-L was considered a "once and for all"=20
> solution at the time
> > it was written?
> >=20
> > > This way I would know that we have a license that Apple
> > > approves of
> >=20
> > Excuse me but Apple _has_ approved of the current license -=20
> they made it!
> >=20
> > > and that may also turn out slightly better than the one
> > > we have now. Of course, they can change their minds in
> > > the future after that, but that would be much less
> > > likely.
> >=20
> > And on what exactly do you base your opinion here? Squeak-L=20
> was made for all
> > the purposes you are mentioning, done by Apple. Now, a=20
> couple of years
> > later, you state some concerns which are based on no facts=20
> whatsoever. So if
> > we take this a couple of years down the road then someone=20
> else might have
> > very similarly unfounded objections. This is just paranoid.
> >=20
> > > The alternative, which Ted implies - is that the Lion is=20
> > > sleeping and we shouldn't disturb it because the Lion may
> > > be in a bad mood. *If* Ted is right about the "mood" part
> > > - which information from Cees contradicts - then I would
> > > like a confrontation now, instead of putting more time into
> > > Squeak and "live in fear" of the Lion awakening.
> >=20
> > Yeah, and play the bull in the china shop. Great idea.
> >=20
> > > More clear what I meant?
> >=20
> > It is clear what you mean but that doesn't mean I agree=20
> with a single word
> > you're saying. It is paranoid no matter how you put it and=20
> you seem to be
> > willing to risk an open confrontation out of those=20
> (completely unjustified)
> > objections. And if you guys screw this up then the entire=20
> community will
> > have to live with the consequences of your paranoia.
> >=20
> > - Andreas
> >=20
> > _______________________________________________
> > Squeakfoundation mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>=20