[Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible

Jimmie Houchin jhouchin at texoma.net
Wed Apr 2 17:19:10 CEST 2003

Ted Kaehler wrote:
> Folks,
>         I am glad to hear that Apple seems to be cooperative.
>> Daniel described it quite good - we are not aiming to go in the
>> direction of FSF (How come a lot of you guys think this? I have no idea
>> where this notion is coming from.) but in the "opposite direction",
>> which means even more BSDish than the current license.
>         Glad to hear this.
>> The Apple Software is pre-release, and untested, or not fully tested.
>> The 'Font' language is another area of 'state' which can change.
>         Thank you for the list of things wrong with the current 
> license.  I like details.  Please be more specific about what you'd like 
> to see changed.
>         Exactly what is the problem with indemnification?  What is wrong 
> with the licensee promising not to sue Apple, given that the system is 
> not coming directly from Apple?  If we added a clause saying that the 
> licensee promises not to sue the Oxfam relief fund, would that make the 
> license bad?

For my part I didn't say anything is wrong about indemnification. What I 
did say (and I may have said poorly) is that language that says Squeak 
is pre-release and hasn't passed our regimen of standards, does not have 
our label of a final release is therefore here, now and forever 
"pre-release, untested or not fully tested" regardless of the point in 
time or current condition of Squeak when you recieve it.

That kind of language I would like to see removed simply because it is 
inaccurate and leaves the wrong impression regarding Squeak.

Proper protection and indemnification is absolutely fine.

I personally think the BSD license does that well enough.
Apple may see it differently. That's fine, let's talk. :)

What I was merely attempting to state is that protection and 
indemnification do not need to be tied to statements that make static 
claims for a dynamic development situation (open source).

What I would like to see is a license that is as clean and minimal as 
can be agreed upon with Apple. The more BSD-like the better.

>         On the subject of export, AFAIK everything licensed by any US 
> company is subject to the restrictions listed in this clause.
>> Apple Software may not be exported or reexported (i) into (or to a 
>> national or resident of) any U.S. embargoed country or (ii) to anyone 
>> on the U.S. Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated 
>> Nationals or the U.S. Department of Commerce's Table of Denial Orders.
> While you might remove this clause, all software generated in the US is 
> subject to it.  Apple can't change that.  Any Debian or OSI OpenSource 
> licensed software that originated in the US has the same restriction.

That may be so. But it is nice to remove explicit claims to implicit 
legal situations. It just keeps things cleaner and simpler to read. 
Everyone should know that they are governed by the laws of their land 
whatever they may be and that regardless of what is said in the license 
all parties are required to be subject to such laws.

Thanks for listening.

Jimmie Houchin

I know from your previous message you said you wrote a significant 
amount of language in the license.

Nothing I am writing is meant to be ugly or harsh toward you or any 
individual. I think the license in its day was probably a great license. 
It amazes me that Apple and its very proprietary nature released such 
software with such an open license. Most/many of us (and probably 
including most at Apple) were not highly educated in the ways of open 
source when Squeak was released. Much has been learned since then by all 

Thanks again for your willingness to participate.

More information about the Squeakfoundation mailing list