"Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> writes:

> goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
>> Matej Kosik <kosik at fiit.stuba.sk> wrote:
>> > PS: Why didn't we register Squeak _directly_ in Debian's package
>> > repository? (main/contrib/non-free).
>> 
>> IIRC that was a no, no because of their dislike of the indemnification
>> clause.
>> But that is just my vague recollection - may be wrong. Lex probably
>> knows.
>> 
>
> That's the killer reason it is not even in non-free.  There are also
> various reasons it is not in main -- e.g., because they don't like the
> export clause, and they don't like the font clause -- but who cares
> about main versus non-free?
>

I've read a lot of different open/free licensesm and at first glance, I
was little concerned about Apple's, but on closer inspection it looked
basically OK to me, except for the fonts.  And definitely non-free.

Fonts, export, indemnification - all no-no's in the Free world. :-)

I feel almost as strongly about Free Software as does RMS.  There is
software I'd like to use but won't because of the license.  The Apple
license was right on the cusp, but after playing w/Squeak a bit, I
reconsidered and decided to use it, but I am also seeing if
GNU/Smalltalk can be used to do what I want, just in case.

> I spent a while arguing with the Debian guys about this on the
> debian-legal mailing list (which, as far as I can tell, is the only
> place to talk about such things).  The only reason to reject it from
> non-free, is that there is a legal risk in doing it.  However, is it a
> realistic risk that someone is going to sue Apple over Debian's
> involvment with Squeak... when they could have just sued Debian
> directly?  And if Apple does get sued -- over an open source program,
> that Apple has released for free, and has made no claims express or
> implied etc., and that Apple no longer has anything to do with -- if
> Apple does get sued, are they really going to pester Debian about it,
> even though they have made a self-image of championing open source
> software?  And even if they were that nasty, would they be so stupid as
> to offer to turn over their defense completely to Debian?  The clause
> requires this, and thus I can't imagine Apple ever trying to cash in on
> it.  And even if Apple does get sued over a product they have nothing to
> do with and that has no warranty express or implied, etc., and even if
> Apple is really that nasty *and* that stupid, what is wrong with Debian
> saying "yes, we'll defend the case ourselves, thank you". Since Debian
> could have been sued directly, doesn't this effectively put them back
> where they started?
>

Apple is an American corporation, and the license looks very much like a
short commercial license with a few words changed.

But consider this scenario: somebody uses Squeak to hack into Experian,
makes off with a few hundred thousand credit reports, sells them to the
Russian mafia, and gets caught.  This has actually happened, but he was
using a Windoze box, not Squeak.

Now suppose that at some point our perp tells the Fibbies (FBI), who
have some good very tech-geeks and would be vaey curious as to why
Squeak?: "I used Squeak because it has features nothing else does'.

True statement, though the chances are very, very slim that Squeak's
features were key - he almost certainly could have done the same thing
from Python.  You, me, we all know that.

Lawyers and judges, however, generally are not Alpha techno-geeks, to
say the least.  But naturally they are going to try and find out a bit
more about it, and boy oh boy do they understand licenses - people
abusing licenses can make them *tons* of money.

Naturally, Micr$oft will get wind of this - they are so wired into the
government they almost literally laughed at their 'punishment' for
monopoly abuse, and have been merrily ignoring many of the 'remedies'
imposed on them.

Money and politics, money and politics.  Consider SCO, and who was
backing them.

You think ole BillG is going to pass up a chance to stick it to his
'buddy' Steve at Apple?  Ha ha, sure.  Over an open source program?
BillG and "Monkey Boy" Ballmer would be *shouting* to the *world* "We
told you open source was dangerous! We told you so! Nyah nyah nyah
nyah!"

Now, suppose it was a web site ending in '.gov' our perp cracked, or our
perp was of Middle Eastern descent.  Never mind about gross negligence
on the part of the web master, sysadmin, etc., for the .gov site - that
would all be 'classified' anyway, so our perp's lawyer can't use it in
court.

In today's current event climate, it seems pretty clear that it is far
from unimaginable that more than a few lawyers would go orgasmic just
thinking about a case like that.

Sad state of affairs, and I have I no idea if Debian-legal thinks along
the same demented lines I sometimes do, but then our legal system seems
to be ever more demented about computers and software, especially when
they are Free.

>
> In my optimistic moments, I expect the pendelum to swing back
> eventually.   For goodness' sake, Debian now rejects the Mozilla Public
> License and also the GNU Free Document License (GFDL).  How far will

It really got my attention when I saw an interview in which RMS
commented on Debian not liking the GFDL - he seemed a bit irked at them,
but said it was their decision to make.

I got curious and looked into the issue on the Debian mailing lists, and
to my surprise, I thought they had a couple of good points, but forget
what exactly.

But GFDL is good enough for me.

> In the meantime, I have far better things to do with my time than go
> around in circles with those guys.  That battle is winable, I believe,
> because Debian exists to do things like distribute Squeak.  However, the
> energy and time required to convince them of what's in their own good,
> is extraordinary and could be better spent elsewhere.
>

I don't suppose that there is any chance of Apple allowing re-licensing?
If it is only the idemnification clause keeping Squeak out of Debian,
there may be some way to ensure that they still get (deserved) credit,
and of course the fonts stuff would have to be in the new license as
well.

>
> -Lex
>
>

-- 
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm
to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient
warrant.
-- John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873), "On Liberty", 1859