Is Squeak 3.0 ready for fame?

Patrik Nordebo patrik at nordebo.com
Thu Mar 22 09:01:43 UTC 2001


On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 09:59:13AM +0100, Patrik Nordebo wrote:
> 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,

That should be "Suppose I'm free", because I don't think I'm actually
allowed to export stuff to Iraq.





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list