Is Squeak 3.0 ready for fame?

Patrik Nordebo patrik at nordebo.com
Thu Mar 22 08:59:13 UTC 2001


On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:27:44PM -0500, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
> >The Squeak license is not compatible with the Open Source Definition
> >(http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html). Clause 6, Export Law
> >Assurances, of the Squeak license is incompatible with clause (this is
> >probably not the right word) 5 of the OSD, which states that the
> >license may not discriminate against any person or group. It may
> >however be possible to distribute a modified version under a license
> >that does not include that clause, depending on whether this keeps the
> >license "no less protective of Apple and Apple's rights".
> >
> >IANAL. YMMV. YHBW. HAND. HTH.
> 
> Precisely why does an assurance that one will comply with applicable 
> law constitute a discrimination against a person or a group?

US law does not apply to me. I'm free to distribute software to, say,
Iraqis. Except I can't distribute Squeak to Iraqis, because Iraq is an
embargoed country, and the license says I can't export it to such a
country. Nor can the Iraqi I distribute to use Squeak, because he/she
can't "represent and warrant that [he] is not located in [...] or a
national of any such country". Hence the license discriminates against
people in countries the US embargoes.

> How, exactly, can a provision that does not provide protection 
> against an Apple licensee violating the law, which may result in 
> liability to Apple, be "no less protective" of Apple's rights?

If it can result in liability to Apple, then the license wouldn't be
less protective. I don't know whether it can, because I don't know US
law. The fact that most public source licenses don't have this kind of
clause suggests that it is not actually a problem.





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list