On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 08:20:58AM +0200, Marcus Denker wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:56:22PM -0400, Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus wrote:
> > Well, there's several aspects to this.  First, Squeak isn't Linux.  You
> > said that is important to be able to build proprietary systems "as you
> > can do with Linux".  But Linux is GPL, and we know that the GPL doesn't
> > work with SqueakL.  
> >
> Yes, yes, exactly my point: They even can do it with GPL/LGPL. We can't.
> That's why it isn't enough to have a license that the FSF calles "free",
> we need more. 

Ok, we agree on this point.  Sorry I misunderstood.

> > The APSL refers repeatedly to file-based distribution of source code.
> > It is clearly not designed with Squeak's source code model in mind.
> > On what basis do you conclude that an APSL-licensed Squeak could form
> > a platform that applications with arbitrary licences could run on and
> > be distributed with?  It is, at best, extremely ambiguous.  I would
> > like to hear a laywer's opinion on the implications of the APSL for
> > distributing Squeak applications under arbitrary licenses.
> > 
> 
> 1.6 "Modifications" mean any addition to, deletion from, and/or change
>  to, the substance and/or structure of the Original Code, any previous
>  Modifications, the combination of Original Code and any previous
>  Modifications, and/or any respective portions thereof. When code is
>  released as a series of files, a Modification is: (a) any addition to
>  or deletion from the contents of a file containing Covered Code;
>  and/or (b) any new file or other representation of computer program
>  statements that contains any part of Covered Code.
> 
> The clause "When code is distributed in files" does not apply
> to squeak. It's nicely formulated as "Project isFileBased ifTrue: []".
> 
> So we have:
> 
> "Modifications" mean any addition to, deletion from, and/or change
>  to, the substance and/or structure of the Original Code, any previous
>  Modifications, the combination of Original Code and any previous     
>  Modifications, and/or any respective portions thereof.
>

Right.  The file clause does not apply, so what we are left with is
the above clause.  Can you ship an application on an APSL-licensed
Squeak without revealing the source code of your application?  Not if
that application constitutes an "addition to the Original Code".  Does
it?  I don't know.  It seems very ambiguous to me.
 
> SqueakL:
> 
>  If the Modified Software contains modifications, overwrites, replacements, 
>  deletions, additions, or ports to new platforms of: (1) the methods of 
>  existing class objects or their existing relationships, or (2) any part 
>  of the virtual machine, then for so long as the Modified Software is 
>  distributed or sublicensed to others, such modified, overwritten, replaced, deleted,
>  added and ported portions of the Modified Software must be made
>  publicly available, preferably by means of download from a website, at
>  no charge under the terms set forth in Exhibit A below. 
> 
> So we have:
> 
>  "the methods of existing class objects or their existing relationships, 
>  or (2) any part of the virtual machine"
> 
> Vs.
> 
>  "the substance and/or structure of the Original Code"
> 
> Pretty much the same, only more general.

Ok, but in general, general ~~ better.  I agree that the APSL is better in
some ways.  However, I fail to see how it permits applications built on
Squeak to be distributed with arbitrary licenses.

Joshua


> 
>    Marcus
> 
> -- 
> Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de  -- Squeak! http://squeak.de
>