Website look

goran.hultgren at bluefish.se goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Tue Apr 30 10:32:50 UTC 2002


"Mark S. Miller" <markm at caplet.com> wrote:
> >Lex Spoon <lex at cc.gatech.edu> said:
> >> you worry that businessmen will equate "open source"
> >>and "OSI", but that hasn't even happened (yet?) among us technical
> >>people.
> 
> Hi all, I'm Mark Miller, and I run an open source project over at 
> http://www.erights.org .
> 
> Lex, my perception is that this has indeed happened among both technical and 
> business folks. 

I agree. 

[SNIP of good argument about guarding the distinctions made by FSF &
OSI]
>
> In any case, I've read section 6 of SqueakL and don't understand the problem 
> with it.  I tried looking at the squeak archive, but it's no better indexed 
> than mine ;), so I wasn't able to find an explanation of the problem.  If 
> this has already been hashed out, then please respond to me privately rather 
> than on the list.

Here are some quotes on that from OSIs license-discuss:

"...
Requiring  compliance with U.S. laws, even in other jurisdictions is 
unnecessary.  But the way paragraph 6 is worded, I think it obviously
fails the OSD non-discrimination test.

I quote that paragraph:

6. Export Law Assurances.  You may not use or otherwise export or
reexport the Apple Software except as authorized by United States law
and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Apple Software was
obtained.  In particular, but without limitation, the Apple Software
may not be exported or reexported (i) into (or to a national or
resident of) any U.S. embargoed country or (ii) to anyone on the U.S.
Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated Nationals or 
the U.S. Department of Commerce's Table of Denial Orders.  By using
the Apple Software, you represent and warrant that you are not located
in, under control of, or a national or resident of any such country 
or on any such list.<p>

I am sorry that there are some previous licenses to work with
here.  Squeak is pretty well-known.  But my recommendation:
DEFINITELY DO NOT APPROVE.
..."

And also regarding the "font problem" (which we easily can fix of course
by removing them):

"...
Section 2: There is a thorny issue about fonts. While fonts are 
clearly not part of the program if distributed separately, it is 
difficult to say that they are not part of the program when they 
are so distributed.  If they are part of the program, then this 
section runs afoul (IMO) of #1, "shall not restrict any party from 
selling . . . the software".  I think the fonts should be in a 
separate package differently licensed, with all references to them 
excised from this license.
..."


"...
Striking the section is, IMO, necessary: elsewise there is a 
restriction in the license on the software that the OSD requires 
there not be.  I'm pretty sure this list's opinion on 
'unenforcable' clauses is 'then take it out!' :)
..."



regards, Göran



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list