How to change the squeak licence ?

Joshua Gargus schwa at fastmail.us
Mon May 9 11:46:15 UTC 2005


Ross Boylan wrote:

>I've resisted saying anything as long as I can :)
>
>On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 12:50:17AM +0200, Cees De Groot wrote:
>[snip]
>  
>
>>Sure. But the click-through license is what counts.
>>    
>>
>
>As you probably know, it is not clear that click-through licenses are
>legally binding.  Even if they are binding in general, some of their
>terms may not be enforceable.  This will be my only point in favor of
>a relaxed interpretation :)
>
>  
>
>>What Squeak-L? I'm arguing that - as an unsuspecting user - I'm only
>>bound by VRI's license. So I can fingerpoint all I want. VRI licensed
>>the package to me (that gigantic zip file with whatever is in there),
>>so I just put the blame there.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Under this logic, if I took squeak, stripped off the license, and
>posted the remainder, perhaps with my own license, you'd be home
>free.  This is a rather dubious interpretation.
>
>  
>
Especially if the downloader knows about the switcheroo.  It's pretty 
tough to pull off the "unsuspecting user" role when we have this longish 
thread discussing these shenanigans.  Furthermore, even if a newcomer to 
Squeak is unaware that they are using the wrong license, as soon as they 
become aware they either have to abide by the terms of the actual 
license or stop using Squeak, which could prove to be quite inconvenient.

The main reason that IBM is kicking SCO's ass in court is that SCO has 
no evidence to show.  If SCO could document that IBM had done something 
like is being discussed here, the court case might be going very 
differently.  We shouldn't blatantly break laws.  Let sleeping dogs lie, 
yes.  Blatantly break, no.

Josh



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list