Dual licencing and Squeak ENH policy
lothar.schenk at gmx.de
Tue Jan 20 12:04:48 UTC 2004
Samir Saidani wrote:
> I'm about to release new packages on squeakmap and these packages need
> to modify some squeak base classes (hence in Squeak-L) in order to
> work properly.
I am not a lawyer, either, so I reserve the right of being wrong with anything
I tell you. ;-)
> So if they modify this classes, I guess I have to
> release all the packages under the Squeak-L, but I don't want, mainly
> because of the exportation clause.
The first distinction I think that needs to be made in the Squeak-L is between
what is called there "Apple Software", what is called "Modified Software" and
what is not covered there explicitly and what may be called "Third Party
The term "Apple Software" is defined in Paragraph 1 as "the software,
documentation and any fonts which you will receive by downloading this
software". Of course, calling it "Apple Software" only makes sense in
relation to software owned by apple. This is clearly the case with the
original contributions by Apple.
The term "Modified Software" is introduced in Paragraph 2, where it says "You
may modify and create derivative works of the Apple Software" and this is
then called "Modified Software". A derivative work in copyright law is any
work that incorporates pieces of another copyrighted work, for example a
screen play based on a novel. It has to be substantially different to be
considered a work that's copyrightable by itself. What is substantially
different is open to question and lastly determined authoritatively only in a
court of law on a case by case basis. I think what the Squeak-L calls a
"modification" of the Apple Software is a work that cannot be considered to
be substantially different to be called a derivative work.
Now, as to this "Modified Software", which includes, it should be kept in
mind, any derivative work, it is said in Paragraph 2 that: "If the Modified
Software contains modifications, overwrites, replacements, deletions,
additions, or ports to new platforms of: (1) the methods of existing class
objects or their existing relationships, or (2) any part of the virtual
machine, then for so long as the Modified Software is distributed or
sublicensed to others, such modified, overwritten, replaced, deleted, added
and ported portions of the Modified Software must be made publicly available
... at no charge under the terms set forth in Exhibit A below.
To me, there are several conclusions from that:
(1) If you make a derivative work and keep it privately to yourself (i.e. do
not distribute or sublicense it) you need not make anything of it available,
not even the modified portions.
(2) Not all portions of a derivative work need to be made publicly available.
Only if your work contains modifications etc. of either the virtual machine
or the methods of existing class objects or their relationships. And only the
modified portions need to be made available.
(3) If your work does not modify anything in the existing VM or image, you
need not make anything publicly available.
It is interesting to note that the terms of Exhibit A, under which you have to
release modified portions do not refer to the export clause, indemnification
of Apple etc. as does Squeak-L itself.
Note also, that all these clauses refer specifically to "Apple Software" and
not "Modified Software".
What I CANNOT tell you, however, is, if "Apple Software" is to be seen as
inclusive or exclusive of "Modified Software". I think, Andrew Greenberg
could clear this up, for sure.
If it were inclusive, all of these clauses would still pertain to modified
portions (but not to your own portions if you chose differently). If it were
exclusive, they wouldn't and only Exhibit A would be pertinent.
So, Andrew, if you have the time, can you confirm or reject my understanding
of these matters and also clarify the status of "Apple Software" vs.
More information about the Squeak-dev