Hi guys!
(cc:d to Stephen since he should be able to answer some questions)
Ok, we are discussing the Squeak-L, Debian etc.
Stephen, I thought (from discussing this with a Debian friend) that the main problem with getting Squeak into Debian was related to the export restrictions, but that may have been wrong(?). Having read up a bit on your postings to linux.debian.legal it seems that it was a combination of:
- the indemnification stuff - fonts - publishing of base modifications
First of all - the fontproblem is solvable and/or not a problem. StableSqueak has replaced them so that is one simple way out. And then it may be a non-issue altogether: http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/1849
Regarding the publishing of base modifications, I am not sure what Debian's problem is/was?
I also saw your posting:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Debian+Squeak&hl=en&rnum=1&sel... m-0000ML-0W%40anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net
And you also wrote somewhere else that:
A similar clause in the Squeak license was enough to prevent me from packaging it as Apple confirmed to me that it did indeed mean that if a Debian user sued them then Debian could theoretically be liable to pay any legal fees and damages. You need to have this clarified.
That does sound as "the killer" - also read more below. Andrew?
John Hinsley jhinsley@telinco.co.uk wrote:
Duane Maxwell wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2001 6:21 PM, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote
On Thursday, October 25, 2001, at 08:19 PM, Lex Spoon wrote:
The main problem Debian has with Squeak-L is the indemnification clause, not the "non-free" parts. Would you not be worried yourself about agreeing to such a clause?
No. I would expect anybody who let me play with their code for free, so that I was free to do anything I wanted to do with it -- including using it to cause damage or infringe, would expect me to hold them harmless when THEY got sued for MY conduct.
I agree completely. You often hear the OSS community whining about how some software house should release their abandoned code base as OSS (cf. BeOS, Amiga, OpenMail, etc.) . In today's litigious environment, no sane company would do so unless they were able to at least raise some indemnification barrier to protect them, so I would expect clauses like this one, and ones that are more or less required by XYZ country's export restrictions to be pretty much standard in anything that somehow manages to get released.
Now, perish the tort ;-) I don't want to get involved in arguments with lawyers, but the GPL states:
If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
(Which might cover the export restriction stuff)
This is interesting. I had missed that in the GPL.
But still Squeak-L doesn't talk about "patents or by copyrighted interfaces" - it simply says that countries in some way banned by the US is a no no.
and
BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM ``AS IS'' WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Which seems to me to cover the indemnity stuff adequately.
At least we could perhaps sortof "settle" on why Debian is not doable so that we at least know why we can't bang on Debian's door anymore.
regards, Göran
PS. Sorry for continuing the thread... :-) DS