RE: Re: Sublicensing seems possible

Hi Andreas.

This is a complicated, irritating and touchy issue. 

I value your opinion, and would very much like to hear what you think of
DFSG (as stated in www.debian.org/social_contract.html) compliance as a
possible goal for Squeak licensing, if you have the time and inclination
to go through their rationale (not that long, really).

I am a little frustrated, because the direction I actually wish to take
this, is one that I think that no member of SqC would actually object
to. This is something that I do care about, and would be very much
relieved if you guys took a hard look at it, and let us all know.
However different your actual positions may turn out to be from mine.

Be well,
Daniel

Andreas Raab <[email protected]> wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> I apologize for the last message - it was written too hasty. I have in the
> meantime communicated with Göran 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] 
> > [mailto:[email protected]] 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > G1ran,
> > > 
> > > > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Squeakfoundation mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Wed Apr 02 23:55:48 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 16250 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 23:55:48 -0000
Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (207.69.200.110)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 23:55:48 -0000
Received: from sdn-ap-002ilchicp0434.dialsprint.net ([63.184.137.180]
	helo=jameco)	by smtp6.mindspring.com with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 190s50-0002Az-00	for [email protected];
	Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:55:42 -0500
Message-ID: <000401c2f973$6acbeda0$b489b83f@jameco>
From: "Gary Fisher" <[email protected]>
To: "Discussing the Squeak Foundation"
	<[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 18:53:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
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 23:55:49 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Vainsencher" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible


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

Um, it would if the Iraqis were offering it for free.  (-:

> 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)?
>

Daniel, I'd like to see every school running Debian but the fact is most
aren't; further, I strongly suspect most schools where Squeak is installed
aren't running Debian either.  My own experience is that a certain decidedly
un-open OS rules the roost thus far, but Squeak doesn't really seem to care.

> 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.
>

So do I, nor do I see what's holding them back.

Gary