Hi all!

God damn these license threads can pull you in. ;-) I have come to hate
them but just can't let this one go.

"Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > > the part about using it outside of the context of Squeak constitutes
> > > essentially a dual license. In short it's SqueakL+GPL.
> > 
> > As I read it it is NOT a dual license. I can not use those files
> > according to SqueakL ONLY - if it was a dual license I could. A dual
> > license is when the user can *choose himself* which license to use. In
> > this case Ian is setting the rules.
> 
> Well, fine. Whatever ;-) There's still no problem with it.

Regarding "problem", see below.

> > So no, it is a further restricted SqueakL, even though the first 3
> > restrictions mentioned aren't that earthshattering  (one note about
> > misrepresentation, one about renaming files upon modification, and one
> > about not removing notice), they are still restrictions.
> 
> Yes they are. And you want absolutely no restrictions whatsoever? Well,
> that's a statement I have an issue with (see below)

You implied it was like dual licensing. I replied it is NOT like dual
licensing. These clauses constitute restrictions and are thus
alterations to SqueakL. In short it is NOT SqueakL. You now say, "Yes
they are". Period.

> > ...BUT it includes this passage:
> > "Using (or modifying this file for use) in any context other 
> > than Squeak changes these copyright conditions."
> > 
> > Then it further describes how such an act would make the files
> > accessible under GPL instead.
> > 
> > The problem here - and it sure would be nice to hear what a 
> > lawyer says on this - what does "in any context other than Squeak"
> > mean? If I build a proprietary product that uses Squeak inside,
> > is that another context?
> 
> I think that's exactly why it is formulated in a somewhat vague way. What I
> read into this statement is if you're unsure about it to either ask your
> lawyer or (even better) ask Ian for a clarification / change of license for
> whatever project you are doing. In short, my interpretation of the above is:
> "If you are unsure, please ask." Not exactly unreasonable, is it?

All this talk about the moral or unreasonability of it isn't the point.
I have never questioned that. Please don't interpret this thread as some
form of accusation against Ian - he is of course in his full legal right
etc. etc. Ok? Just drop that, please.

I like Ian really much, enjoy his company at OOPSLAs and *really* enjoy
his work - it has been superb. And he has helped me with the Socket
layers previously to the extent that he rewrote the whole thing! In
short - Ian is IMHO one of the most important Squeakers I know of. Ok?

> I would
> very much appreciate it myself to be informed/asked about uses that don't
> obviously fall under "Squeak context".

Well, of course. Now, if you, Tim and John also come up with some
clauses and add those to your respective ports then we get even more
licenses to talk about! :-) Sorry for sounding annoyed but it seems so
hard to make my point here without people going on the defense. Perhaps
understandable given the subject but I am really not accusing anyone of
anything here.

Btw it is a difference urging people to do things - but when you create
new licenses it turns into a problem for the community IMHO.

Again, I am definitely not questioning Ian's reasoning for his choice of
license - he can even have really weird reasons - who am I to question
him? He is the author etc.

I merely point out that it is a *different license*. It is *not*
SqueakL. And this means we now have *multiple licenses* for Squeak. I
assume you can agree with me on this. So this brings me to my questions:
"Is there a problem with this situation? Can it get worse? Should we
care?"

(If any part of this posting is worth replying to it would be the above
three questions)

Andrew Greenberg has repeatedly warned us about what will happen if we
start mixing licenses in Squeak, now I am doing it too. I assume you
place more trust in Andrew than me.

> > In other words - does the context "Squeak" mean the distribution of
> > Squeak itself as available from www.squeak.org? It sure sounds like it
> > could be interpreted that way.
> 
> If you are uncertain about it, please ask. If you are unhappy with these
> restrictions, please ask. It's simple, really. Since Ian has written this
> stuff, he can relicense it for whatever purpose and under whatever terms
> that are agreeable to him. If you (and your lawyer) are reasonably certain
> that it matches the context "Squeak", fine. If not, just ask. (and, as
> always, none of this can prevent anyone from suing anyway...)

All of this is of course stuff I am fully aware of and you know it. It
isn't the point of what I am saying.

> > Anyway, it sure saddens me that Squeak has these issues.
> 
> Issues? I don't really see an "issue" here. It's just that not all people
> have the "I don't give a damn about what you do with my stuff" attitude.
> Some people are (believe it or not) even proud of their work and would like
> others to contribute to the base if they have made use of that base.

And of course I "believe" that some people are proud of their work.
Andreas, please don't argue with me like I am a child or simply stupid.
Really, please. :-) :-) (smileys added to lighten this up)

> I personally don't like MIT or any other completely
> i-dont-give-a-shit-just-dont-sue-me-license very much, as I AM proud of what
> I do (well, for the most part ;) So if you hack (for example) Balloon, or if
> you extend the Windows font plugin, or if you hack the VM, then, yes, I
> would like it VERY much if it would be your clearly stated responsibility to
> feed back your modifications to the community.

Ok, then - perhaps what you and Ian want is for us to add more
restrictions to SqueakL for whole Squeak? Seriously?

> The balance is what is complicated as I wouldn't want to get the commitment
> to sharing into the way of commercial/proprietary developments. That's what
> sucks about GPL (but it's a political license anyways) but otherwise I find
> the goal totally agreeable. And the current SqueakL defines a pretty good
> balance in my understanding - if you hack the base, you ought to share it,
> otherwise build and own whatever you want. In an extreme case, ask for a
> different/clarified license for the portion you are interested in.

I agree with the fact that the current SqueakL is rather nice *in this
respect*. It is bothersome in other respects but that is another thread
(Debian inclusion etc).

And just to finish this post off with something... funny. Or
interesting. Or whatever! I kept staring at Exhibit A the other day, it
looks like this:

License. You may copy, install, use, modify and create derivative works
of the [Modified Software] "Changed Software" (but you may not modify or
create derivative works of the [Fonts]) and distribute and sublicense
such Changed Software, provided however, that if the Changed Software
contains modifications, overwrites, replacements, deletions, additions,
or ports to new platforms of: (1) the methods of existing classes
objects or their existing relationships, or (2) any part of the virtual
machine, then for so long as the Changed Software is distributed or
sublicensed to others, such modified, overwritten, replaced, deleted,
added and ported portions of 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 [which should contain the terms of this Exhibit
A]. You may distribute and sublicense the [Fonts] only as a part of and
for use with Changed Software, and not as a part of or for use with
Changed Software that is distributed or sublicensed for a fee or for
other valuable consideration.

IIUIC this is the license plate you need to use if you modify base stuff
and thus must make the modified work publicly available (clause 2). Here
is a shortened version of the above text almost the same but easier to
read:

You may create derivative works of the software and distribute and
sublicense such Changed Software, provided however, that if the Changed
Software contains modifications to the existing classes or the VM (or
new ports of it), then for so long as the Changed Software is
distributed, such modified portions of the Changed Software must be made
publicly available 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 [which
should contain the terms of this Exhibit A]. 


Of course someone will set me straight but... Here goes - take this with
humour. :-)

It says something like "I may create a derivative work and distribute
and sublicense it but IF I have changed the base Squeak THEN I should
make the changes publicly available under this and that license."

Now... what if I *haven't* made any such modifications? Let's say I have
simply added two classes! Does this mean that I can "distribute and
sublicense" it *any way I please*?

Of course clause 2 has an extra sentence in there: "You may distribute
and sublicense such Modified Software only under the terms of a valid,
binding license that makes no representations or warranties on behalf of
Apple, and is no less protective of Apple and Apple's rights than this
License."

But again, IIUIC I only need to use Exhibit A when making publicly
"portions modified" available,  and Exhibit A doesn't have that extra
sentence! So... a weird scenario:

1. Ian's VM is a port of the VM. It is this forced to be made "publicly
available under the terms of Exhibit A". Ok. If Ian just used Exhibit A
as license I gather he is in compliance with SqueakL.

2. I come along, download Ian's VM and *don't make any modifications
whatsoever*. Perhaps that can't be called a derivative work but what the
heck (if my example was the image it would be possible to just add a
class or two). :-) Then perhaps I can distribute it and sublicense it
*any way I would like* and still be in compliance with Exhibit A!


Hehe, end of weird train of thought. Just playing around. :-)

> Cheers,
>   - Andreas

regards, Göran