ask for APSL? for real this time?

goran.krampe at goran.krampe at
Wed Jan 7 21:52:32 UTC 2004

"Lex Spoon" <lex at> wrote:
> goran.krampe at wrote:
> > The only real practical problem AFAIK with the current license is that
> > it isn't OSI certified. IIRC the export clause was the problem. That
> > wasn't a problem for the Debian people, they instead got scared by the
> > indemnification stuff. Anyway, these two clauses in Squeak-L thus
> > prevents Squeak from being an option/included in many different
> > contexts.
> The problems are real, as far as I know.  I would love to be convinced
> that this is just OSI and Debian being extremely nitpicky, but so far it
> seems they are simply being more observant than most.

Oh, sorry - my use of the word "only" sounded as if I didn't agree that
it *is* a problem.
On the contrary I am very much in agreement with you that even though
this seems to be the "only" problem with the license (meaning that I
can't see many other *practical* problems) - it is a kinda big problem
nevertheless. :)

So we are in absolute agreement.

> As it stands, Squeak is only available to certain countries of the
> world, and it incurs a hefty liability on anyone who merely
> *distributes* Squeak.  These are things that will bother both open
> source zealots, and also companies with conservative legal staff.

Indeed so.

[SNIP of the rest which I also agree on]

regards, Göran

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list