On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 20:35:27 -0500: Chris Reuter cgreuter@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
[cut]
As an example, what about adding copyright information to classes? Each class could have a date, name and a licence number. Every distribution of the Squeak core classes could have a document which provides a list of licencing options, from GPL to fully commercial. Tools could be provided to browse licences etc.
This smacks of trying to solve a social problem with software.
Isn't this what software's for? ;-) But seriously, fixing Squeak might be must simpler and easier then fixing society!
I think a better idea might just be to do what many of the perl folks do--distribute their modules under the same license as perl itself. It makes this really easy because everyone knows what the terms of the license are.
My suggestion is that that the powers that be consider either rewriting the squeak license to make it simpler and easier for others to adopt or to switch to one of the better-known licenses (BSD, Artistic, GPL with extensions[1]). This would then be the preferred license for addons.
Why restrict ourselves to just one license? Can't Artistic packages live together with commercial packages? Also I am unsure as to what extent Squeak Central can change the licence - see below.
All I would need to do when uploading a goodie is to add the comment, "released under the XXX license" and everyone who uses it will know what I mean and won't come under any additional restrictions.
I agree - this is like what I was trying to suggest, only with a choice of what licence to put in ëXXX'.
[CUT]
It has been said "Don't worry. Apple has already forgot about it..." in terms of the license and its enforcement. However that probably won't cut it with IP lawyers of a major corporation. These are sorts of questions such a lawyer might ask, and it would be nice to have ready answers available for anyone contemplating getting Squeak into their organization.
And, if the day comes that some GiantEvilCorporation [tm] sees Squeak as a threat to its proprietary products, a flaw in the license could prove disastrous.
Indeed.
The licence which is shown at http://squeak.cs.uiuc.edu.au/license.html is a licence given to use/modify/distribute the orginal Apple software - that is the version which Squeak was at when the Squeak team left for Disney (which was that?). (On my reading, before they left, they were adding to the core classes under their employment contracts; now they are creating a derivate work under the license). The license for the last Apple version (apart from disclaimers of liability etc) gave some rights eg:
(1) Modified versions of the system could be created, and distributed *provided* that they were distributed under a licence which protected Apple at least as much as the original license, and
(2) If the modified version contained "modification, 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 the modifications etc must be made publically available for free.
(3) If you are selling a modified version *you can't include the orginal Apple fonts*.
If you are using/adapting a recent version of Squeak then you are *not* using the orginal software, but a modified version (which has been modified by Squeak Central). On my reading, this means that Squeak Central can create a license for the new versions of Squeak, provided that the license:
(1) protects Apple's rights/liabilities
(2) includes the clause saying that modifications of the orginal classes/VM must be published for free.
Because the newer (modified) versions of Squeak have been released under the original Apple licence, I don't know whether the classes which are part of the current distribution, but not part of the Apple distribution, are considered to be "core" classes, so that modifications have to be published. However, these classes have several authors (eg Celeste, File Contents Browser etc), so if they have been released under a "Publish if you Modify" agreement then that license must have been given by the author, not Apple.
Yes, this is messy. I think we should clean it up before Squeak starts being pored over by corporate lawyers in Armani suits :-). The Gurus at Squeak Central probably have a better idea of this then I do - in particular Disney Corp may have ideas of their own. Comments anyone?
Russell