stephen at pairhome.net
Wed Aug 20 13:44:08 UTC 2003
Uggg...this discussion is really frustrating to read. There are some
(ahem...Andreas) that seem to be brow beating the others with the
opinion that there is not a real problem...when clearly there is. If we
all want to stop wasting time on this, we need to address the issues,
not pretend they don't exist.
There are plenty very good examples of legal frameworks for open source
projects that work well. We should simply state it as a goal to
replicate one of those for ourselves and begin to work it into our
processes as much as is possible with the eventual goal of having
everything provided by the Squeak community fall within that framework.
I think the apache software foundation is a very good example that
matches very well with the goals that most people seem to be expressing
Andreas Raab wrote:
>>You make it sound very harmless by using words like "mere existence".
>>Additional clauses turns it into another license. Period.
>I chose the phrasing to distinguish between clauses that affect the goal of
>the license and clauses that don't. It seems worthwhile to me to make that
>distinction in order to be able to differentiate between a question like
>"should we allow GPL-style restrictions within Squeak" and "should we allow
>someone to request a change in the name if you mess with his or her code".
>Both can be seen as "just" being different licenses but I am certain you
>will agree that there is in fact a difference between the two.
>>You are basically saying that you want us to loosen up the "Only
>No, I want to be able to look at specific situations without having a sledge
>hammer as the "known-to-solve-it-all" solution. I want to be able to discuss
>these issues without being dead-locked in the kind of overly general
>discussion we're having right now. What you are arguing for is an
>absolutely-no-excemptions-approach and what I am really doing here is trying
>to point out that this approach can backfire on you if you are as inflexible
>as you apparently want to be. That's why I am saying please don't argue
>exclusively in the abstract, please have an actual look at what such a
>situation may look like.
>>I don't like that, it would create an explosion of silly
>>little licenses that no lawyer has looked at. And we can
>>kiss the "usable for business" goodbye. Just as Andreas
>Did I? ;-)
>>And how many of these little excemptions would it take to create a
>>Big Mess? No, no excemptions. Instead we should IMHO come up with
>>one (or possible two) alternative licenses for contributors to pick
>>from. I need to read Daniel's latest thoughts but I am guessing he
>>is leaning towards this too.
>That's all fine, but at the same time it might be worthwhile to consider
>that (whatever license you end up with) there will still be situations in
>which that license may not address specific concerns that people (or
>companies) have. So I still stand by _my_ point which is simply: Try to be
>flexible. Acknowledge that there will be situations in which we will have to
>deal with specific situations. Understand that the sledge hammer solution
>can be problematic and that we should try to do what is best for Squeak and
>that this "best" may, at times, to be flexible instead of strict. The better
>any new/alternative/combined/community license is the less of those
>situations we will encounter. But I think there are always going to be some
>cases which just have to be looked at individually.
>>PS. Can Alan or you please clarify the ownership question of
>>Disney work that keeps popping up?
>I cannot since IANAL and the term "ownership" would have to be interpreted
>in a legally binding way. The only thing I can say for sure is that Disney
>(including the CEO and the lawyers) knew and approved of portions of our
>work done as open source and I am pretty sure they understood (maybe not the
>CEO but most definitely the lawyers) that someone else could take what we
>did as open source and give it a new direction, make products out of it etc.
> - Andreas
Do you need:
Mailing List Services?
IMAP/POP3/Web Email Accounts?
Instant Messaging Accounts hosted on your domain?
Email me for information.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3427 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20030820/2f26c4d2/smime.bin
More information about the Squeak-dev