On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 20:35:27 -0500:  Chris Reuter 
<cgreuter at calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

[cut]

>> As an example, what about adding copyright information to classes?  Each
>> class could have a date, name and a licence number.  Every distribution of
>> the Squeak core classes could have a document which provides a list of
>> licencing options, from GPL to fully commercial.  Tools could be provided 
>> to browse licences etc.
>
>  This smacks of trying to solve a social problem with software.

Isn't this what software's for? ;-)  But seriously, fixing Squeak might be
must simpler and easier then fixing society!

>  I  think a better idea might just be to do what many of the perl folks
>  do--distribute their modules under the same license as perl itself.
>  It makes this really easy because everyone knows what the terms of the
>  license are.
>
>  My suggestion is that that the powers that be consider either
>  rewriting the squeak license to make it simpler and easier for others
>  to adopt or to switch to one of the better-known licenses (BSD,
>  Artistic, GPL with extensions[1]).  This would then be the preferred
>  license for addons.

Why restrict ourselves to just one license?  Can't Artistic packages
live together with commercial packages?  Also I am unsure as to what extent
Squeak Central can change the licence - see below.

>  All I would need to do when uploading a goodie is to add the comment,
>  "released under the XXX license" and everyone who uses it will know
>  what I mean and won't come under any additional restrictions.

I agree - this is like what I was trying to suggest, only with a choice of
what licence to put in ëXXX'.

[CUT]

> >It has been said "Don't worry. Apple has already forgot about it..." in
> >terms of the license and its enforcement. However that probably won't
> >cut it with IP lawyers of a major corporation. These are sorts of
> >questions such a lawyer might ask, and it would be nice to have ready
> >answers available for anyone contemplating getting Squeak into their
> >organization.
>
>  And, if the day comes that some GiantEvilCorporation [tm] sees Squeak
>  as a threat to its proprietary products, a flaw in the license could
>  prove disastrous.

Indeed.

The licence which is shown at http://squeak.cs.uiuc.edu.au/license.html is a
licence given to use/modify/distribute the orginal Apple software - that is the
version which  Squeak was at when the Squeak team left for Disney (which was
that?).   (On my reading, before they left, they were adding to the core classes
under their employment contracts; now they are creating a derivate work under
the license).  The license for the last Apple version (apart from disclaimers of
liability etc) gave some rights eg:

(1) Modified versions of the system could be created, and distributed *provided*
that they were distributed under a licence which protected Apple at least as
much as the original license, and

(2) If the modified version contained "modification, overwrites, replacements,
deletions, additions or ports to new platforms of (1) the methods of existing 
class
objects or their existing relationships [?], or (2) any part of the virtual 
machine"
 then the modifications etc must be made publically available for free.

(3) If you are selling a modified version *you can't include the orginal Apple
fonts*.

If you are using/adapting a recent version of Squeak then you are *not* using 
the
orginal software, but a modified version (which has been modified by Squeak
Central).  On my reading, this means that Squeak Central can create a license
for the new versions of Squeak, provided that the license:

(1) protects Apple's rights/liabilities

(2) includes the clause saying that modifications of the orginal classes/VM must
be published for free.

Because the newer (modified) versions of Squeak have been released under the
original Apple licence, I don't know whether the classes which are part of the
current distribution, but not part of the Apple distribution, are considered to 
be
"core" classes, so that modifications have to be published.  However, these
classes have several authors (eg Celeste, File Contents Browser etc), so if they
have been released under a "Publish if you Modify" agreement then that license
must have been given by the author, not Apple.

Yes, this is messy.  I think we should clean it up before Squeak starts being
pored over by corporate lawyers in Armani suits :-).   The Gurus at Squeak
Central probably have a better idea of this then I do - in particular Disney
Corp may have ideas of their own.  Comments anyone?

Russell