On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 12:40:41PM -0400, Doug Way wrote:
> 
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> >I am meeting a lawyer tommorrow. He works for/with the local OS/FS
> >association, and I'm going to get an opinion about sublicensing Squeak
> >in a DFSG compliant manner.
> >
> 
> Don't forget to also ask about sublicensing Squeak in an OSI-compliant 
> manner as well.  I believe these were the two main things we were hoping 
> to achieve by sublicensing?  (Along with simplifying the license as much 
> as possible, I guess.)

The thing I'd *LOVE* to hear about is what, exactly, that indemnification
clause means.  Currently Squeak is not even in the non-free section of
Debian, because of liability concerns.  There is a concern that Debian
might be assuming liability for *any* Squeak issue that someone sued
Apple over, and not just issues that involve the distribution itself.
That is, is Debian liable if they distribute Squeak to the guy who
commits a crime with it?  If some outraged parent sues Apple over, say,
content unsuitable for children in Squeak (possible in contries like
the US), can they pass the liability to Debian just because said parent
got Squeak via Debian?  If the indemnification clause is sane then this
is not the case; Debian could only be sued about things involving
distribution.  But is the clause sane?

Yes, it sounds silly -- what in the world could anyone sue Apple over,
anyway, as for as Squeak is concerned?  It's addictive?  All your
Java programmers are demoralized now that they've seen something
better?  It's unlikely there will ever be legal action involving
Squeak.  Still, it just isn't right for the distributor to be assuming
liability for the content.  It's already available world-wide, after
all.

The other issues are important from being DFSG.  They are less
important, IMHO -- the biggest crisis is that Squeak isn't even in
non-free right now!  Let's see, I can think of two things. The font
issue is one thing, but there are two ways around this even without any
license change: either remove the fonts, or just rely on the fact that
the clause is void anyway due to the fonts being bitmap fonts.  The
export issue is a bigger concern, but even there it might be okay as it
is.  Debian has learned to deal with export clauses due to the recent
deregulation of crytographic software, and possibly Squeak's export
restrictions are no longer a problem because of this.  (Or maybe they
are; I don't know).


> Thanks for working on this, btw. :-)

Seconded.  It has been very frustrating!  Debian is firmly committed
to staying legal and is not going to make it a matter of a risk/reward
judgement.  Further, they're unlikely to change their policy over one
weird license.  They argue that if something is not a big deal, then
it's not a big deal to take it out of the license, either.  Many
authors agree and *have* changed their licenses.  I suppose OSI feels
the same way.

It is wonderful that you are working on this, Daniel, and we all
owe your lawyer friend a debt of gratitude.  Maybe we can make some
case-management software for him in Squeak.  :)

Lex