[Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
danielv at netvision.net.il
Wed Apr 2 00:42:41 CEST 2003
Cees has already contacted someone within Apple.
We're aiming for a license that are at least as compatible for
commercial development as SqueakL (and more so, at least as far as
removing the fonts and the related clauses would simplify things).
What we are trying to achieve is a license that is free. The widely
accepted definitions for free software are three, as given by OSI,
Debian, and the FSF (see links below). Their definitions are nearly, but
not quite, the same, and SqueakL, strictly speaking, complies with none
of them (despite the fact that it allows us quite a bit of freedom).
This is despite the fact that SqueakL is pretty damn good, as far as
licenses signed back then by big companies go.
The importance of getting a free license as defined by external,
accepted standards, is that
A. People should not live in the kind of fear you mention, of someone
that has power to revoke or control the software we're investing time
in. A free license ensures that, by definition (at least as far as
B. We have a BetaMax license - it is almost fine, by itself, but it
isn't compatible with other stuff. For example, it prevents us from
including Squeak in the Debian distribution, which would get Squeak
into the hands of lots of the right kinds of people.
For the definitions of free I speak about above, see
- www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (note here that I mean merely the definition of free - I do not endorse the GPL for Squeak)
Ted Kaehler <Ted at SqueakLand.org> wrote:
> There are at least two dangers in messing with the Squeak license.
> 1. Apple has forgotten about Squeak. If we bring it to their
> attention, there is a great probability that they will try to revoke
> the current Squeak license. Even if they can't do this legally, they
> can put enough doubt into air that companies and groups will be
> hesitant to use Squeak for major projects. I strongly discourage you
> from contacting Apple.
> 2. One of the best features of the current license is that
> commercial development on top of Squeak is OK. Any move to change
> this is a big step backwards.
> (Please explain in plain English the thing you are trying to
> accomplish by changing the Squeak license.)
> Disclaimer: I am the author of a large part of the current Squeak license.
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the Squeakfoundation