[License]: need expert

Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de
Thu Feb 7 16:22:24 UTC 2002


On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 07:05:50AM -0800, Alan Kay wrote:
> Everyone is an amateur lawyer ....
> 
> Remember the law as it is generally set up now is in terms of words 
> to be argued about. There is very little actual logic anywhere (pace 
> Andrew!).
>
Ok. So let's start to argue :-) 

There is a nice sentence in the SqueakL concerning the License of a 
distributed modified Version:

| EXHIBIT A
|
|...the Changed Software must be made publicly available, preferably by means
|of download from a website, at no charge under the terms of a license that
|makes no representations or warranties on behalf of any third party, is no
|less protective of [the licensors of the Modified Software] and its
|licensors, and contains the terms set forth in Exhibit A below ...
|

(actually a recursive definition, quite nice)

We are distributing a changed version. So are we allowed to distribute
this under a license not less protective to Apple than the original SqueakL.
All the things we don't like in the SqueakL are not enforcable anyway or
can be replaced (fonts). So simply omiting these would generate a License
not less protective to Apple than the current SqueakL. q.e.d

       Marcus

-- 
Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de  -- Squeak! http://squeakland.org




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list