Squeak's license (uh-oh...)

Craig Latta Craig.Latta at NetJam.ORG
Fri Jul 16 00:54:26 UTC 1999


	(Please forgive my sending this, a response to a private message, to the Squeak list...)

> why would [Open Source Initiative] approval matter?

	I think future Squeak development would proceed more quickly and with better results if newcomer developers could quickly identify Squeak with the Open Source Definition.

> I raised this issue a few months back and was convinced by the responses that the 
> present license is pretty darned great.

	If the license if great, then I think OSI approval of it is also great (as I mentioned before). But I think the license is poor, for the following reasons:

> ...even if we or Disney had authority to change the license (which comes from Apple),
> why should it be changed?

-	There's the first problem right there, and it's a big one. Disney is not mentioned, and perhaps should be. Apple is mentioned, and possibly should not. Squeak (and, for that matter, Smalltalk) seems to have been operating largely "under the radar" of both companies, which certainly has benefits. However, I think lawyers from both companies may need to get involved here and give approval. "We" have been putting this off for years, and I think it could cause serious grief later. I think we have to face up to it as soon as possible.

	Indeed, I'd prefer a license that makes no mention of any company whatsoever! What are the legal ramifications of, for example, Apple going out of business? Furthermore, the current license has anachronistic debris in it (e.g., "In no event shall Apple's total liability to you for all damages exceed the mount of fifty dollars ($50.00)." I think sections one, three, four, five, six, and seven are effectively dead weight. It would be nice to cut out the cruft; the license would be shorter and easier to read, and more people might actually read it. It might be even better to use an existing license we like and with which newcomers are already familiar.

	In any case, I think "we" SHOULD have authority.

-	Section two says that derivate works must be made available at no charge. I don't like that restriction, for the same reasons that the OSI doesn't (http://opensource.org/faq.html, etc.). No other "open source" license has that restriction, not even the GNU ones.

-	Section two mentions the "exisiting relationships [of existing class objects]", which I think is vague. And what happens if Squeak gets rid of Classes altogether? I think a license that relies on implementation details of the software it describes is too brittle.

-	Section two says that derivative works must be made publicly available, but it doesn't say WHEN.

	My concerns with these points were not ameliorated by the discussion you had on the Squeak list. And until I feel good about Squeak's license, I don't consider Squeak a truly worthwhile investment of my time (long story there, for some other time...).


	thanks,

-C


--
Craig Latta
composer and computer scientist
craig.latta at netjam.org
www.netjam.org
latta at interval.com
"Instant monotony! Just ad nauseam."





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list