I'm curious about "the problem of the indemnification clause". All it 
says it that Apple can't be held responsible for whatever happens. 
What is the problem there?

Cheers,

Alan

------

At 12:29 AM -0800 3/24/04, Ross Boylan wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 04:49:12PM -0800, Tim Rowledge wrote:
>>  Bert Freudenberg <bert at impara.de> wrote:
>>
>>  >
>>  > Thanks! I posted a reply (in particular to counter this dramatically 
>>  > distorted view: 
>>  > http://lists.debian.org/debian-edu/2004/debian-edu-200403/
>>  > msg00204.html).
>>  >
>>  What amazing utterances. You'd think maybe they'd consider reading the
>>  licence before trashing the project. Perhaps you'd like to point out
>>  that squeak is most certainly free, not property of disney, exxon, the
>>  illuminati nor any other siblings of satan.
>>
>>  And as for the idea that he'd never heard of alan before now.. well.
>>  How about Babbage? K&R? Papert? Wilson?
>>
>>  tim
>Unfortunately, though the utterances that started the debian-edu
>thread were pretty inane, there is a real issue.  As flagged on the
>squeak licensing page, there is an indemnification clause which makes
>Debian nervous and makes the license fail Debian's free software
>guidelines.
>
>As a Debian user, I would love to see squeak in the main Debian
>distribution, but my understanding is that this issue is a
>show-stopper.
>
>Arguing that the clause will never apply doesn't really help;
>obviously, the lawyers who drafted the license thought there was a
>point in inserting the clause.
>
>I think Debian is right on both counts: Debian should not assume the
>risk of redistributing the software, and software that requires the
>user to assume such a risk is not free.


--