<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Ross,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Just another thing to consider: The "by using this software, you implicitly accept the terms of the license" is a genereally baseless and unenforcable claim. The most strongly enforcable contracts are those in writing, signed by both parties. Lower in strength would be "verbal contracts", and they are quite difficult to enforce without credible witnesses to the verbal agreement. Somewhere lower in strength would be "You used my software, so I assume you saw, read and agreed to the terms of the license." It is nearly impossible for a claimant to prove in a court of law that a user of the software was in any way aware of the license or it's terms.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The only true test here is to put something "out there" and see if anybody sues you. If you use anything created by a third party in the creation of your product, you are automatically assuming liability for these third party elements. For example, people tend to sue automobile manufacturers for damages as a result of failure of some component of the automobile, but auto manufacturers are star examples of "outsourcing-in-action". If you aren't comfortable with the quality of your product, don't "put it out there" and expose yourself to associated the liabilities. It is perfectly reasonable for Apple (or anyone else) to say that they are going to hold you responsible for any harm that you cause to come to them. It is reasonable for them to hold you responsible even if they don't say that they will.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I firmly agree with the position Alan Kay has indicated many times (i.e. Don't worry about it.).</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> -Dean</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Ross Boylan <RossBoylan@stanfordalumni.org></b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">03/24/04 05:09 PM</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to The general-purpose Squeak developers list </font>
<br>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> cc: Ross Boylan <RossBoylan@stanfordalumni.org></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Subject: Re: Squeak Licence and Debian and Apple and Skolelinux</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 11:35:38AM -0800, Alan Kay wrote:<br>
> Ross --<br>
> <br>
> The problem is that all of this is essentially ridiculous, because <br>
> there is no way to prevent anyone from suing anyone, regardless of <br>
> the disclaimers. So coming up with doomsday scenarios is not at all <br>
> helpful, and simply puts more of a scare into people who are easily <br>
> scared.<br>
> <br>
This is true, but incomplete. It is true that anyone can sue anyone<br>
for any reason, and that no license can protect you completely from<br>
that.<br>
<br>
Your statement is incomplete because it avoids the fact that under the<br>
squeak license, if someone sues Apple for whatever reason related to<br>
squeak, you explicitly give Apple the right to drag you into it.<br>
This puts anyone who accepts the license at a particular risk they<br>
would not otherwise have.<br>
<br>
> None of the licenses that are accepted by the OSI give anyone <br>
> protection from any suit.<br>
<br>
I suspect none of them explicitly open the licensees up to liability<br>
either.<br>
<br>
> <br>
> In any case, it would be nicer if the BS was BS that scared people <br>
> less regardless of the actual facts and actual legalities.<br>
<br>
I meant my examples more as jokes, but clearly the lawyers who drafted<br>
the clause put it there for a reason, and anyone who takes it<br>
seriously has some basis for being concerned.<br>
<br>
Free + a potential time bomb <> free<br>
> <br>
> I hereby (legally) resign from this thread.<br>
> <br>
OK, taking you off the distribution list, though I'm kind of hoping<br>
you'll see this. :)<br>
<br>
> Alan<br>
<br>
Some of the problem is a general cultural issue of law vs business or<br>
most other activities. Lawyers are paid to worry about the outside<br>
chance, even if most of us think that's silly. While most of us<br>
consider the probabilities, lawyers tend to think more in terms of the<br>
possibilities: anything that might conceivably happen should be dealt<br>
with. Perhaps because my father was a lawyer, I tend to take<br>
contracts pretty seriously. And, though I personally am pretty<br>
comfortable using squeak because I recognize the chance I would get in<br>
trouble is tiny, I really don't think organizations can be so casual.<br>
<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>