"Mark S. Miller" markm@caplet.com wrote:
Lex Spoon lex@cc.gatech.edu said:
you worry that businessmen will equate "open source" and "OSI", but that hasn't even happened (yet?) among us technical people.
Hi all, I'm Mark Miller, and I run an open source project over at http://www.erights.org .
Lex, my perception is that this has indeed happened among both technical and business folks.
I agree.
[SNIP of good argument about guarding the distinctions made by FSF & OSI]
In any case, I've read section 6 of SqueakL and don't understand the problem with it. I tried looking at the squeak archive, but it's no better indexed than mine ;), so I wasn't able to find an explanation of the problem. If this has already been hashed out, then please respond to me privately rather than on the list.
Here are some quotes on that from OSIs license-discuss:
"... Requiring compliance with U.S. laws, even in other jurisdictions is unnecessary. But the way paragraph 6 is worded, I think it obviously fails the OSD non-discrimination test.
I quote that paragraph:
6. Export Law Assurances. You may not use or otherwise export or reexport the Apple Software except as authorized by United States law and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Apple Software was obtained. In particular, but without limitation, the 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. By using the Apple Software, you represent and warrant that you are not located in, under control of, or a national or resident of any such country or on any such list.<p>
I am sorry that there are some previous licenses to work with here. Squeak is pretty well-known. But my recommendation: DEFINITELY DO NOT APPROVE. ..."
And also regarding the "font problem" (which we easily can fix of course by removing them):
"... Section 2: There is a thorny issue about fonts. While fonts are clearly not part of the program if distributed separately, it is difficult to say that they are not part of the program when they are so distributed. If they are part of the program, then this section runs afoul (IMO) of #1, "shall not restrict any party from selling . . . the software". I think the fonts should be in a separate package differently licensed, with all references to them excised from this license. ..."
"... Striking the section is, IMO, necessary: elsewise there is a restriction in the license on the software that the OSD requires there not be. I'm pretty sure this list's opinion on 'unenforcable' clauses is 'then take it out!' :) ..."
regards, Göran
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org