[ANN] Closure Compiler

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Wed Mar 26 10:56:49 UTC 2003


Göran,

> 	Squeak-L permits sublicensing as long as the new 
> license "no less protective of Apple" etc. Could we create
> a sublicense then in which we simply dumpl clause 6? Export
> has nothing to do with Apple, has it?

Interesting idea in fact. This might work (but only a lawyer can tell you).
What would be good about this were that the new license could be a little
less "Apple centric" in its verbage. The new license could actually exclude
the font clause given that no Apple fonts were in the release.

Cheers,
  - Andreas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> Behalf Of goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:23 AM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Closure Compiler
> 
> 
> Hi again!
> 
> One more thought. :-) I started reading up again what it was that
> actually flunked Squeak-L for OSD compliance. It was clause 6 
> in regard
> to the OSD non-discrimination test. (well, the font clause needs to go
> to, but we can do that if we rip out the fonts as has been stated 999
> times).
> 
> In Squeak-L we have this text regarding sublicensing:
> 
> "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."
> 
> A little silly question then:
> 
> 	Squeak-L permits sublicensing as long as the new 
> license "no less
> protective of Apple" etc. Could we create a sublicense then 
> in which we
> simply dumpl clause 6? Export has nothing to do with Apple, has it?
> 
> Just curious. I mean, obviously I am missing 134 different 
> legal subtle
> points here, but if this could be done then we could pass OSD 
> and become
> OpenSource! :-)
> 
> regards, Göran
> 
> PS. Debian inclusion had another problem - they didn't care 
> of clause 6
> - their problem was clause 5 IIRC.
> 



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list