[Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
jhouchin at texoma.net
Wed Apr 2 11:09:51 CEST 2003
Andreas Raab wrote:
>>I know that. What I meant is that I think it is better to
>>approach Apple and straighten this out once and for all.
> The "once and for all" part is exactly where you are wrong. Even if Apple
> would change the license there is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent
> them from *trying* to revoke it a couple of years down the road. Don't you
> think that Squeak-L was considered a "once and for all" solution at the time
> it was written?
No I don't. I believe that could only be the case if Apple believed
Squeak would be DOA after it left Apple. As I've stated before, the
license contains 'state' information which does not accurately convey
the 'state' of Squeak.
The Apple Software is pre-release, and untested, or not fully tested.
Regardless of the research nature of Squeak, regardless of the
availability of the 'Test Pilot' versions. Squeak isn't so 'pre-release,
and untested, or not fully tested.' as is implied by the language.
Are the 1.xFinal, 2.xFinal, 3.xFinal versions pre-release?
If the image contained 1,000s or 10,000s of SUnit tests according to
this langauge it is untested.
In my experience Squeak has required less 'force quits', 'restarts',
etc. than any Apple OS I've used in the last 9 years. (I've not used OSX)
I don't remember seeing this language in the MacOS install for the MacOS.
There is plenty of language which conveys disclaimers of liability and
The 'Font' language is another area of 'state' which can change.
There may be others that I am not addressing here.
The license was written very specifically and is no longer accurate.
>>This way I would know that we have a license that Apple
> Excuse me but Apple _has_ approved of the current license - they made it!
But, that does not mean or imply that Apple is against revisiting
(positively) the license to update it.
Apple approved of APSL 1.0 but the license is currently at 1.2.
Apparently they revisited the license to make adjustments due to
increased knowledge of the open source environment in which they wish to
>>The alternative, which Ted implies - is that the Lion is
>>sleeping and we shouldn't disturb it because the Lion may
>>be in a bad mood. *If* Ted is right about the "mood" part
>>- which information from Cees contradicts - then I would
>>like a confrontation now, instead of putting more time into
>>Squeak and "live in fear" of the Lion awakening.
> Yeah, and play the bull in the china shop. Great idea.
>>More clear what I meant?
> It is clear what you mean but that doesn't mean I agree with a single word
> you're saying. It is paranoid no matter how you put it and you seem to be
> willing to risk an open confrontation out of those (completely unjustified)
> objections. And if you guys screw this up then the entire community will
> have to live with the consequences of your paranoia.
I don't see why so many people are afraid to learn of the current
opinion or intent of the owner of the copyright of the software they
wish to base the foundation of their work upon.
I think that it is the most sound and prudent course of action.
If Apple did/does/will have bad intent towards Squeak many of us here
would rather know at this stage of the situation.
Yes, I/We understand that Apple could do something nice now and in the
future still attempt to revoke. But we would have further improved our
legal standing until such time.
I personally don't believe revocation is an issue. It would be bad for
Apple. I also believe if that day occurred there would be others with
attorneys who would help in court. A revocation precedent would affect
more than just the users of Squeak.
More information about the Squeakfoundation