Dual licencing and Squeak ENH policy

goran.krampe at bluefish.se goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Tue Jan 20 12:30:49 UTC 2004


Lothar Schenk <lothar.schenk at gmx.de> wrote:
[SNIP]
> 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.

This is what I called the "loop hole" on some occasion in the past. But
another interpretation is that Exhibit A is *additional* to the other
clauses in Squeak-L. Here is the relevant piece:

"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. You may distribute and sublicense the
Fonts only as a part of and for use with Modified Software, and not as a
part of or for use with Modified Software that is distributed or
sublicensed for a fee or for other valuable consideration. 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, preferably by means of download from a
website, at no charge under the terms set forth in Exhibit A below."

I personally read the last line as meaning "under the exact terms in
Exhibit A and nothing more or less". But Craig Latta read this as "under
the terms set forth in Exhibit A and also of course also 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" - since he thought that the first sentence
also refers to those parts in "Modified Software" that constitute the
base modifications.

Again, IANAL and can't say which interpretation is the correct one -
though I am leaning towards Craig being right.

So much for that loophole! :)

regards, Göran



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list