license stuff
Daniel Vainsencher
danielv at netvision.net.il
Wed Aug 13 19:35:11 UTC 2003
Lex Spoon <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 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.
I'll try to get what I can about this.
> 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?
:-)
> > Thanks for working on this, btw. :-)
>
> 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. :)
He's not a friend (yet), I've never spoken to him before. Just exchanged
a few emails with him and set an appointment with his secretary. I have
no idea if he's even very familiar with this area of law. So lets not
get our hopes up too high - I'll report some facts when I have them,
tommorrow.
Daniel
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|