On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Lex Spoon wrote:

> 
> > My impression about SqueakL/Debian though (my memory may serve me wrong
> > here) was that the export clause (!) was no problem for Debian, it was
> > the indemnification stuff as Stephen Stafford explained:
> > 
> > http://macos.tuwien.ac.at:9009/438570542.asHtml
> > 
> > ...which probably would be a problem for OSI too then I guess.
> 
> That was my impression as well.  But this has nothing to do with whether
> the software is "open source" or not, so OSI may well be fine with it. 
> Apparently, such indemnification clauses are common, and, since people
> seem to live with them, I'm guessing that they aren't as broadly
> applicable as they sound like.
> 
> Here it is, for the record:
> 
> =====
> 5. Indemnification.  You agree to indemnify and hold Apple harmless
> from any and all damages, liabilities, costs and expenses (including
> but not limited to attorneys' fees and costs of suit) incurred by
> Apple as a result of any claim, proceeding, and/or judgment to the
> extent it arises out of or is connected in any manner with the
> operation, use, distribution or modification of Modified Software, or
> the combination of Apple Software or Modified Software with other
> programs; provided that Apple notifies Licensee of any such claim or
> proceeding in writing, tenders to Licensee the opportunity to defend
> or settle such claim or proceeding at Licensee's expense, and
> cooperates with Licensee in defending or settling such claim or
> proceeding.
> ======
> 
> 


Idea of additional indemnification
==================================

Perhaps a Squeaker passing on Squeak with his additions could add an
additional indemnification passage ("a kind of patch"). The receiver
would take on the responsibility of holding harmless Apple _and_ the 
Squeaker who did the additional work.

As I'm not a lawyer I do not know if this is possible. From the
layman's point of view it should be. 

This reminds me of MS's EULAs containing passages
somewhat similar, even sometimes not compatible with the law 
(at least here in Europe) and not tested in court. Of course 
that's not an excuse of trying the same.
If and how this parallel applies here I'm not sure.


To sum up: 
It would be great to have a carefully worded addition
(with or without indemnification)
one could put on Squeak's distribution CD's together with Apple's 
license to explain the situation and if needed to get the receiver 
agree on additional points. At least the text should summarize
the various discussions about this topic held the last three
years (probably about 500 emails).

I remember Andrew Greenberg writing that the Squeak License is
in fact quite good. 

Cheers
Hannes Hirzel



P.S. The explanation on double dispatch by Göran Hultgren was excellent.
We should put these kind's of texts on the Swiki. It would be especially
interesting to illustrate well known patterns with the actual classes
and methods used in Squeak.