Python no longer GPL-compatible (Squeak implications?)

Paul Fernhout pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com
Fri Sep 8 22:08:45 UTC 2000


Andrew-

I think the deeper issue here that CNRI ended up in effect claiming that
Python was never under a real license, and then insisted on changing the
licensing terms just recently. For details, see:
  http://www.python.org/1.6/license_faq.html

A small excerpt from that page:

"1.The old Python license from CWI worked well for almost 10 years. Why
a new license for Python 1.6? 
  CNRI claims copyright in Python code and documentation from
releases 1.3 through 1.6 inclusive. However, for a number of
technical reasons, CNRI never formally licensed this work for
Internet download, although it did permit Guido to share the results
with the Python community. As none of this work was published
either, there were no CNRI copyright notices placed on these Python
releases prior to 1.6. A CNRI copyright notice will appear on the
official release of Python 1.6. The CNRI license was created to
clarify for all users that CNRI's intent is to enable Python extensions
to be developed in an extremely open form, in the best interests of the
Python community." 

One of my concerns (raised quite a while back) regarding the current
licensing situation with Disney is that Disney might decide to do the
same thing. Since Disney claims a copyright interest in the current
Squeak version, but has not to my knowledge explicitly ever given out a
specific license to use their changes, they might insist at a later date
that their changes might not be used, or might only be useable under
some specific undesirable license. The Python example shows that a
company can argue that if you receive a modified version of something
with only the original author's license, you do not have an official
license from the new author for the changes. To an extent the original
Apple Squeak license imposes some restrictions on this behavior, but for
something mostly new like for example Morphic this issue might come
strongly into play. In addition, and admittedly stretching things a bit,
if Disney argued it never actually officially "distributed" Squeak, in a
way like CNRI claims it never formally licensed Python for Internet
Download, even the core changes might not be under a specific license.
For example, has anyone outside of Disney ever actually downloaded a
Squeak release from a Disney server in a way that would be
unquestionably considered "distribution" of Squeak by Disney?
 
To illustrate this point, let me replace a few words and make a few
changes from the above quote from CNRI as one might imagine a Disney
lawyer might write on some future date when Disney upper management
realizes Squeak is the goose laying the golden eggs and perhaps decides
to try to get that gold a bit faster:

"1.The old Squeak license from Apple worked well for almost five years.
Why a new license for Squeak 3.0? 
  Disney claims copyright in Squeak code and documentation from
releases 1.3 through 3.0 inclusive. However, for a number of
technical reasons, Disney never formally licensed this work for
Internet download, although it did permit Dan and Alan to share the
results
with the Squeak community.  The Disney Squeak license was created to
clarify for all users that Disney's intent is to enable Squeak
extensions
to be developed in an extremely open form, in the best interests of the
Squeak community and to provide a maximum short-term return to Disney's
shareholders. We are sure everyone will agree that the runtime fees for
the use of Morphic are quite reasonable."

[Note: The copyright related sentences were snipped from the above
because Squeak does have a Disney copyright included already, but I
don't think that changes anything about the licensing status.]

Does this sound plausible? Well, I don't know. But it is one of the
uncertainties limiting Squeak's appeal to myself and potentially other
business users. The fact as I see is that Disney has never formally
licensed its changes to Squeak. I'm not trying to spread FUD related to
Squeak beyond this fact. I am instead hoping this motivates people at
Disney to formally clarify the licensing status of distributed
modifications to Squeak made by Disney personnel such as at SqueakC. If
Squeak is to be the goose that lays the golden eggs for Disney, proper
licensing is like the vitamins to keep it in tip-top shape.

If anyone can point me to an existing clarification of the licensing
status of SqueakC contributions from an official representative of
Disney, please do so.

-Paul Fernhout
Kurtz-Fernhout Software 
=========================================================
Developers of custom software and educational simulations
Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list