[Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
danielv at netvision.net.il
Thu Apr 3 03:01:39 CEST 2003
This is a complicated, irritating and touchy issue.
I value your opinion, and would very much like to hear what you think of
DFSG (as stated in www.debian.org/social_contract.html) compliance as a
possible goal for Squeak licensing, if you have the time and inclination
to go through their rationale (not that long, really).
I am a little frustrated, because the direction I actually wish to take
this, is one that I think that no member of SqC would actually object
to. This is something that I do care about, and would be very much
relieved if you guys took a hard look at it, and let us all know.
However different your actual positions may turn out to be from mine.
Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> I apologize for the last message - it was written too hasty. I have in the
> meantime communicated with Göran privately (as it involved a number of
> things which I didn't feel adequate for a public list). I don't want to undo
> anything here - all I want to is that you carefully consider the pros and
> cons of what you're planning on doing and. And I'm sure you will do this.
> - Andreas
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squeakfoundation-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > [mailto:squeakfoundation-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org]
> > On Behalf Of Daniel Vainsencher
> > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 12:28 AM
> > To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
> > Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
> > Andreas, let's review the facts.
> > Cees has already talked to Apple. You may want to undo that,
> > but that's
> > impossible, whatever you convince us of. The good news is, on the
> > surface, they don't seem that unfriendly. Which may be a
> > ruse, but then
> > life itself might be an illusion, it's empty speculation.
> > The people that have mentioned the sleeping lions are Alan,
> > Ted, Andrew
> > (IIRC). Goran and I were *answering that*. I agree there is some risk,
> > and as Alan and yourself have put it, there always is. Fine,
> > to the extent
> > to which we have no choice, we'll live with it.
> > No current Guides have expressed a wish to entangle the Squeak image
> > with GPLed code. We couldn't stop other people from posting
> > such code on
> > SM if we wanted, but that's fine, there doesn't be any reason
> > to do so.
> > What we (or at least I) do wish to do, is end up with a license that's
> > up to the standards accepted by free software/open source developers
> > today. This both to broaden cross-fertilization with them, and benefit
> > from what wisdom those standards encode (including a lot of lawyer
> > time).
> > Those standards are up at www.debian.org (my personal favorite) and
> > www.opensource.org.
> > Now, what exactly about this picture don't you like? can you explain
> > what you would want different?
> > Daniel
> > Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > G1ran,
> > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > > This way I would know that we have a license that Apple
> > > > approves of
> > >
> > > Excuse me but Apple _has_ approved of the current license -
> > they made it!
> > >
> > > > and that may also turn out slightly better than the one
> > > > we have now. Of course, they can change their minds in
> > > > the future after that, but that would be much less
> > > > likely.
> > >
> > > And on what exactly do you base your opinion here? Squeak-L
> > was made for all
> > > the purposes you are mentioning, done by Apple. Now, a
> > couple of years
> > > later, you state some concerns which are based on no facts
> > whatsoever. So if
> > > we take this a couple of years down the road then someone
> > else might have
> > > very similarly unfounded objections. This is just paranoid.
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > - Andreas
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Squeakfoundation mailing list
> > > Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> > _______________________________________________
> > Squeakfoundation mailing list
> > Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the Squeakfoundation