This sounds good. The only problem I can think of with this, is that
SqueakL includes the indemnification clause, which specifically mentions
Apple. This bugs Debian people, and rightly so. 

However, we might be able to replace this with the language from CPL
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php), which provides some
indemnification protection, without naming names.

Andrew, do you think this might work?

If so, we should draft the Squeak-Free-L, try to run it by Debian, and
if they like it, we remove the fonts, and sublicense Squeak. Since it's
allowed by the current license of Squeak, it doesn't require talking to
every contributor (though that might help clear things up even more
thoroughly).

Daniel

Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.
> >
*************************** SqueakL indemnification clause
 5. Indemnification. You agree to indemnify and hold Apple harmless from
any and all damages, liabilities, costs and expenses (including but not
limited to attorneys' fees and costs of suit) incurred by Apple as a
result of any claim, proceeding, and/or judgment to the extent it arises
out of or is connected in any manner with the operation, use,
distribution or modification of Modified Software, or the combination of
Apple Software or Modified Software with other programs; provided that
Apple notifies Licensee of any such claim or proceeding in writing,
tenders to Licensee the opportunity to defend or settle such claim or
proceeding at Licensee's expense, and cooperates with Licensee in
defending or settling such claim or proceeding.
****************************