Dual licencing and Squeak ENH policy

Lothar Schenk lothar.schenk at gmx.de
Tue Jan 20 15:28:00 UTC 2004

Goran Krampe wrote:

> > 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 how I understand this:

Exhibit A is not an additional clause in the Squeak-L. It is a wording of the 
(minimal) license under which you must release modified portions of the base 
software. It is viral in that further modifications of modified portions 
("Changed Software") must again be made available (at least) under the 
license worded in Exhibit A.

If I distribute unmodified portions of the original Apple Software, they would 
still be covered by the Squeak-L If I distribute modified portions as 
indicated and required by paragraph 2, then Exhibit A is a preformulated 
wording of the license I have to use or must include in my own license, if I 
have additional terms.

[Modified Software] in Exhibit A takes the place of "Apple Software" in 
Squeak-L, and "Changed Software" in Exhibit A takes the place of "Modified 
Software" in Squeak-L. In this recursive fashion, Exhibit A repeats the 
provisions of Paragraph 2 in Squeak-L for the [Modified Software].

Apple's further rights according to the Squeak-L are implicated in Exhibit A 
by the provision that further modifications of the [Modified Software] must 
again be licensed under a license which is "no less protective of [the 
licensors of the Modified Software]" (which might be you or me) "and its 
licensors" (and this chain will eventually end with Apple). So, any code that 
has any connection to original Apple code is either under Squeak-L itself (if 
unmodified) or under Exhibit A, and Apple's rights have to be protected.

If I understand this correctly, then if I were to release any modifications I 
make solely under the license worded in Exhibit A with no additional clauses, 
then Apple's rights would automatically be sufficiently protected.

Now, what of those parts of an application which are not modifications of the 
existing software? I think the question of crucial importance here is if it 
has to be considered as "derivative work" or not. Because in the case of a 
derivative work, Paragraph 2 of Squeak-L imposes restrictions on the license 
I can use, in that said license "makes no representations or warranties on 
behalf of Apple, and is no less protective of Apple and Apple's rights than 
this License". If it is not a derivative work (wholly original), you can, of 
course, do whatever you like. But as Andrew has cautioned, given code 
similarity, it might not be possible to draw the line between derivative and 
non-derivative clearly enough in a legal challenge, because of Squeak 
development practices.

Okay, I await corrections and further insights by those more knowledgeable 
than me. :)

Regards, Lothar

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list