Licences Question : Squeak-L Art 6.
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Fri Feb 21 09:06:32 UTC 2003
Cees de Groot <cg at cdegroot.com> wrote:
> > - Revising the "indemnification" stuff, this was what stopped Debian
> > inclusion IIRC.
> Do you have pointers to that? AFAIK most open source licenses have some
> indemnification clause...
So I went digging a bit in my Celeste to clarify (there is LOTS about
these things in the archives). A filter like "(m textHas: 'Debian') and:
[m textHas: 'indemnification']" found quite a bit on this specific
Stephen Stafford is "the man" to ask for the Debian inclusion details -
he was the one who really tried at the time.
Regarding inclusion in Debian, Stephen Stafford wrote:
> The indemnification is the
> only thing that prevents it from being in the distribution AFAIK
> (although the other concerns you mention would mean we would have to
> distribute it as non-free and non-US)
And further down regarding clause 11 & 12 in the same email:
> > [someone wrote] Which seems to me to cover the indemnity stuff adequately.
> Not at all. Those clauses say ~"you may not sue us because you got it
> for free and we do not provide ANY warranty for it if it, even if it
> manages to cause world war 3". The clause in the Apple license saye
> ~"You can sue us if you like, but then you have to pay our legal fees.
> And if a third party you have no control over sues us but they got the
> software from you then you are *still* liable to pay our costs and
> legal fees."
And to round it off, Stephen wrote:
> As the current license stands we (Debian) can't distribute Squeak. The
> major problem is the indemnification clause. We *will NOT* agree to
> indemnify Apple against some third party who we distribute the software
> to taking Apple to court. We just can't afford to. Sorry.
> The minor problems are the fonts (which can either be removed or left
> there. I can still distribute it either way) and the export
> restrictions (I can arrange to not actually ever export it at all. All
> distribution can be done from a non-US mirror and therefore would be
> *imported* into the US in which case the restrictions do not apply. I
> am outside the US personally.)
Regarding APSL Andrew Greenberg wrote:
> I have not considered whether APSL has the same problem as GPL
> concerning monolithic images. But Apple should, at least, be willing to
> relax the font language once the fonts are out, the indemnification and
> import language to the corresponding language in APSL, and the "no less
> protective" language to the language in APSL. Better yet, perhaps they
> will just grant the rights to SqF outright, which would leave us free to
> do everything right and develop the One True License.
And a list was posted in October 2001 (!) when we last "decided" to do
this, Lex Spoon:
> Wow! Let's do it, guys!
> The big things that I know of:
> 1. Indemnification. This is a major strain on software distributors.
>Plus, it probably doesn't help Apple significantly: what could they
>possibly be sued about regarding Squeak?!
> 2. Export restrictions. An impediment to distribution. In fact, I'd
>think they actually put current ftp site maintainers under some risk, if
>anyone ever stops to think about it. Again, I'd be surprised if these
>things really protect Apple very much, but what do I know.
> 3. Fonts re-agreement. Since we can replace the fonts, I'd rather we
> 4. Requirement to post modifications. This is impossible to enforce,
>so... why put it in there?
...and there is of course much more where this came from including my
post with a revised FAQ on licensing that noone bothered to comment on
at the time. ;-)
More information about the Squeak-dev