[Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
Paul D. Fernhout
pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com
Fri Apr 4 23:44:22 CEST 2003
Tim Rowledge wrote:
> When Alan and the others were at Disney they were using Squeak under the
> self-same Squeak-L that the rest of us were/are. Since they were
> modifying and extending the system they _had_ to release those changes
> under the SqueakL just like the rest of us. Surely that cuts Disney out
> of the loop completely?
One relevant section of the license is:
http://www.squeak.org/download/license.html
"If the Modified Software contains modifications, overwrites,
replacements, deletions, additions, or ports to new platforms of: (1)
the methods of existing class objects or their existing relationships,
or (2) any part of the virtual machine, then for so long as the Modified
Software is distributed or sublicensed to others, such modified,
overwritten, replaced, deleted, added and ported portions of the
Modified Software must be made publicly available, preferably by means
of download from a website, at no charge under the terms set forth in
Exhibit A below."
Perhaps it depends on whether one considers something like Morphic (or
other new tools made while SqC was at Disney) to be an extension or to
be a seperate add-on application. By my understanding of the Squeak
license issued from Apple, I don't think it covers most of Morphic (e.g.
likely neither the most basic morph and certainly not a derived clock
morph) -- so what am I not understanding here? Why would a clock morph
developed at Disney be covered under any grant of license from Apple? If
such a morph is covered, then why all my own morphs (perhaps an
advanced clock morph or a video game morph) not be covered (and require
source disclosure and SqueakL sublicensing) under the Squeak license for
the same reason?
Personally, I can see how someone might consider Morphic entirely as an
add-on, as opposed to a pure base class change (even though many base
class changes were involved to support Morphic). Likely, SqC might not
agree and would argue Morphic and all their other related work are
entirely base class method changes or additions (or VM changes). But
still, if one argues Morphic (or parts of it like individual Morphs) is
not under the Squeak License, then what license (issued specifically by
Disney) is it under?
Since the Squeak license tries to both allow people to build on top of
Squeak and keep their changes proprietary, while at the same time trying
to force people to give back ports or base changes, perhaps it depends
some in interpretation of what are core "additions to ... the methods of
existing class objects or their existing relationships" and what are
not. Related issues pop up with the GPL or any other similar license
that tries to control "derived works" or works that link to the original
work in some specific ways.
I guess I am uncomfortable with this situation. If Morphic is covered
somehow by the Squeak License, given that it was developed IIRC entirely
after SqC left Apple (although granted there was HyperSqueak as a
precursor), then what seperates out say, a new web server for Squeak as
not being under the Squeak License, in terms of the licensing
differences from Morphic? Many others who work with Squeak are obviously
not unduly uncomfortable with this issue (including apparently SqC).
Personally, I would be happy to have all my work on such a system be
covered by the original "viral" license (even to the extent of being
GPL'd) -- but it is the ambiguity I see here that bothers me --
expecially given that Morphic and the Squeak support community are so
closely tied in many ways. And, if I am correct, then I have no legal
license to use Morphic even though people then at Disney made it
available once upon a time. (Note: _morally_ I think the intent may be
clear, but _legally_ is another issue...)
The intellectual overhead of dealing with a license applicable to only
one system and one community also bothers me -- but if it was a clear
license, this wouldn't be such a big deal. Yet, I don't see how the
Squeak license covers most of Morphic (and lots of other stuff), so
either I am misunderstanding the implications of the license or there is
something else going on here I am missing.
--Paul Fernhout
http://wwww.pointrel.org
More information about the Squeakfoundation
mailing list