The CPL [1], as it appears on OSI's list of approved license, has an
indemnification feature that might (or might not) be acceptable to both
Debian and Apple. 

Basically it says that *if you decide to* make any sort of guarantees on
the function of the code, then you take sole responasbility for that,
and indemnify all previous contributors. 

So, if I distribute my SpaggetiTracer commercially, with a guarantee
that it will automagically straighten out your code, and then the
ArchiveViewer breaks on you, and deletes your only copy of the family
jewels, you can't sue Ned, but just me.

Which does sound reasonable, because 
- it still lets everyone work uncommercially without liability, and 
- *if you provide guarantees* you're liable to them.
- Apple cannot indirectly obtain more liability than it has already
(which is presumably what they really care about)

It seems to me sublicensing with:
- current indemnification -> such a clause, 
- export -> complying with law, and 
- no mention nor inclusion of non-free fonts 

*could* present something that DFSG, OSI, and certainly I would be happy
with. Just as happy as with BSD. If we agree that's a desired result,
and legally workable, we should then present it to Debian (and maybe
Apple).

Daniel
[1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php

goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> Cees de Groot <cg at cdegroot.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 10:58, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> > > Btw, what does this indemnificaion clause really mean? Does it mean that
> > > if I build something on top of Squeak, distributes it including Squeak
> > > itself and then someone uses this software - then, if this "someone"
> > > sues Apple, I get to pay for it all?
> > 
> > IANAL, but on the face of it it seems to be the case and that scared the
> > Debian guys away...
> 
> "No shit Sherlock" I would like to say. ;-)
> 
> But again - this only applies if I distribute Squeak itself, right? Say,
> like www.squeak.org or the ftp site does? Ehrm.
> 
> regards, Göran