Hi guys!
(This response is crossposted to the SqF-list in order to move this thread over there, so in responses - ****skip squeak-dev****, ok?)
First of all - I agree wholeheartedly with what Daniel's postings. Daniel wrote (short snippet):
It seems to me sublicensing with:
- current indemnification -> such a clause,
- export -> complying with law, and
- no mention nor inclusion of non-free fonts
*could* present something that DFSG, OSI, and certainly I would be happy with. Just as happy as with BSD. If we agree that's a desired result, and legally workable, we should then present it to Debian (and maybe Apple).
Yes, sounds perfect to me. Andrew was hesitant about sublicensing though - I would like to hear more on that. And I would still like to hear an explanation on sublicensing as a concept.
Having said that, I am still waiting for responses (both from Andrew and you others of course) to my other questions, but I will just have to wait a bit longer I assume. :-)
Cees de Groot cg@cdegroot.com wrote:
[We should be moving this thread to SqF, as this whole issue is killing the squeak-dev list...].
True. Done.
The Apple guy responded positively to the idea of sublicensing. I've
Ok, now again - what IS sublicensing? Consider me a complete idiot here.
asked him for permission to share our email exchange with others, which I assume I'll get later today. He indicated that for Apple to look positively at the sublicensing thing we'd need to come up with something that only deviates minimally from SqueakL, just enough to fix it up for DFSG/OSI/... wherever we want to head.=20
So, can we decide as a community that this is OK, a cleaned-up SqueakL? If yes, it is probably time for some legal guys to take over :-)
Sure, I would really like to see Andrew picking up this ball if he is ok with it. Andrew? We would still of course need to build a complete concensus about the proposed actions - but I think we are getting there - these threads have moved us quite a bit forward I think.
This should probably be done on the SqF-list and then, when we have agreed on something we can present it on squeak-dev and see the reactions.
regards, Göran
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 21:41, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
Cees de Groot cg@cdegroot.com wrote:
[We should be moving this thread to SqF, as this whole issue is killing the squeak-dev list...].
True. Done.
One little issue: AFAICT, Andrew is not on the SqF mailing list. Andrew, am I correct?
Hi all and Andrew!
(since I didn't want to revive this thread on squeak-dev I CCed Andrew since I am not sure Andrew is on the SqF-list)
Two very simple questions:
1. Are my questions that I posted (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/squeak/message/58816 among others) so stupid that they aren't worth replying to? If they are then please people, *say* so. That way I can shut up and stop making a fool of myself by asking questions and being ignored.
2. Are we simply going to drop this ball just like we do every time it is brought up? And I am not only talking about changing Squeak-L, most of the issues at hand are about how we handle license questions in the new package oriented Squeak.
There you all go, short and to the point! :-)
I just want to know because I don't want to spend time asking questions and trying to straighten out how these things should work if my views and questions aren't taken seriously and I am being ignored.
regards, Göran
On Tuesday 01 April 2003 04:47 am, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
I just want to know because I don't want to spend time asking questions and trying to straighten out how these things should work if my views and questions aren't taken seriously and I am being ignored.
I don't think you're being ignored (at least not by me). I was waiting for an informed opinion on your questions.
I agree with you where you said:
Personally I (and I think the majority of the community, but that is
a guess) want BSDish first and Squeakish with minor repairs second.
But if there would be any significant risk in trying to get
something BSDish first then a repaired Squeak-L is always better than nothing.
Folks, There are at least two dangers in messing with the Squeak license.
1. Apple has forgotten about Squeak. If we bring it to their attention, there is a great probability that they will try to revoke the current Squeak license. Even if they can't do this legally, they can put enough doubt into air that companies and groups will be hesitant to use Squeak for major projects. I strongly discourage you from contacting Apple.
2. One of the best features of the current license is that commercial development on top of Squeak is OK. Any move to change this is a big step backwards.
(Please explain in plain English the thing you are trying to accomplish by changing the Squeak license.)
Disclaimer: I am the author of a large part of the current Squeak license.
--Ted.
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 19:23, Ted Kaehler wrote:
- Apple has forgotten about Squeak. If we bring it to their
attention, there is a great probability that they will try to revoke the current Squeak license.
Do you have any specific reasons for thinking that? My take on this: - I doubt it (but I'm not an Apple insider at all), as it seems that they use Open Source and have been reasonable cooperative in ensuring that what they opened up really is done as Open Source; so it seems they have a PR interest in keeping the open source community happy, retracting a widely-used (and enhanced) product would do them more harm than they could possibly gain; - If this probability really is high, I rather know it now (so we can act on it, for example by re-writing the code that Apple contributed) than, for example, build a company on Squeak and discover that, say, five minutes before my IPO, Apple withdrew the license. In fact, the very statement by you as an insider that this probability is high might necessitate reconfirmation with Apple by anyone who wants to go into business with Squeak, as it already casts enough doubt...
I strongly discourage you from contacting Apple.
As Daniel said, too late.
- One of the best features of the current license is that
commercial development on top of Squeak is OK. Any move to change this is a big step backwards.
Absolutely agreed.
Cees, I have no specific information on what Apple thinks, other than what I heard while trying to get this license approved 7 years ago. If you go to Apple asking for a change in the license, it opens the whole question of why this license exists. Apple will evaluate whether or not various changes are beneficial to them. Apple cannot legally revoke the license, but they can do things to "shake the tree", and put doubt into people's minds.
If you start a company based on the current license, Apple has no incentive to do anything. I would not hesitate to start a company based on the current license. (My statements on the subject don't change anything.)
Don't forget that Squeak is based on a license for Smalltalk that Xerox granted to Apple. Since you have seen and worked with the Xerox and Apple code inside Squeak, you can't generate parallel 'clean room' code yourself. Some stranger would have to do it.
--Ted.
Hi Ted!
Nice to hear from you! :-)
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.
If you haven't followed these threads, nor the thread when Squeak-L was brought up on OSI mailinglist, there are essentially two big hurdles in the current license: Indemnification clause, and the export clause. The first one makes Squeak a no-no for Debian inclusion. The second one makes it non OSI OpenSource certifiable. The font issue is not an issue - we can easily remove those, there are enough stuff available today to live without them.
Ted Kaehler Ted@SqueakLand.org wrote:
Cees, I have no specific information on what Apple thinks, other than what I heard while trying to get this license approved 7 years ago. If you go to Apple asking for a change in the license, it opens the whole question of why this license exists. Apple will evaluate whether or not various changes are beneficial to them. Apple cannot legally revoke the license, but they can do things to "shake the tree", and put doubt into people's minds.
Well, legally they probably can revoke it but Andrew said in another post that is is highly unlikely since that would make Apple the first company doing such an act on an open source project. It would hurt their goodwill a lot. Apple is doing the open source mambo these days - it can't afford that - but that is just my guess of course, and Andrew's.
If you start a company based on the current license, Apple has no incentive to do anything. I would not hesitate to start a company based on the current license. (My statements on the subject don't change anything.)
Why wouldn't you hesitate that? What if we (think anyone of us in this community) go to Apple and the scenario you just described happens? Then that company is a dead duck. I don't follow your reasoning.
Don't forget that Squeak is based on a license for Smalltalk that Xerox granted to Apple. Since you have seen and worked with the Xerox and Apple code inside Squeak, you can't generate parallel 'clean room' code yourself. Some stranger would have to do it.
Well, I don't know about this. Does it really need to be clean room? Isn't that only needed when avoiding patents etc? Just guessing, again - a lawyer interested in discussing this would be great.
regards, Göran
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 05:23, Ted Kaehler wrote:
Since you have seen and worked with the Xerox and Apple code inside Squeak, you can't generate parallel 'clean room' code yourself. Some stranger would have to do it.
I know. Worse, I work with VW and sometimes apply tricks from VW code to Squeak. Or from GNU Smalltalk code. Or from Squeak to VW. Or ... Just like most Smalltalkers out in the field (lots of them work with more than one version).
Licensing-wise, Smalltalk is a complete mess - you cannot generally open the source and still hope that all the cross-contamination you get from there does not work... Personally, I think ignoring the matter is the best solution ;-)
Anyway, if your statement is based on experience from 7 years ago that's ok. Apple learnt a lot since that time, and my contacts seem to indicate that they are not willing to change the license (simply because they're happy with it as far as their side of the deal is concerned) but they are willing to discuss other ways out of the 'not OSI/DFSG compatible' impasse.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Cees de Groot" cg@cdegroot.com To: "Discussing the Squeak Foundation" squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:08 AM Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
. . . but they are willing to discuss other ways out of the 'not OSI/DFSG compatible' impasse.
Pardon my asking, but in what way is this an 'impasse' from the Squeak side? The fact Debian can't include Squeak in their distributions limits Debian, not Squeak (which is in fact regularly released in deb packages) while the lack of OSI Certification is far from the biggest hurdle to wide adoption of Squeak/Smalltalk. Stripping Squeak just to get a nod from these outside standards groups -- which appear themselves to have no particular, specific interest in adding Squeak to their own lists -- seems a bit self-destructive. The current license is incredibly generous; why rock the boat?
Gary Fisher
Hi again!
Forgot one little simple thing.
Ted Kaehler Ted@SqueakLand.org wrote:
Folks, There are at least two dangers in messing with the Squeak license.
Note that it may not be necessary to "mess" with Squeak-L. Squeak-L explicitly *allows* sublicensing so that is also an approach. In fact, this seems to be the approach that Cees has gotten some positive feedback on.
And again, living in "fear" is not something I want to do. :-)
regards, Göran
Göran,
And again, living in "fear" is not something I want to do. :-)
The paranoid will always live in fear. You know, there's really nothing you can do to prevent someone *trying* to revoke a license. Whether that's successful is quite a different matter (though it may hurt the standing of all involved). But please, don't delude yourself that you "won't be living in fear" if you're paranoid enough right now ;-)
Cheers, - Andreas
"Andreas Raab" andreas.raab@gmx.de wrote:
Göran,
And again, living in "fear" is not something I want to do. :-)
The paranoid will always live in fear. You know, there's really nothing you can do to prevent someone *trying* to revoke a license. Whether that's successful is quite a different matter (though it may hurt the standing of all involved). But please, don't delude yourself that you "won't be living in fear" if you're paranoid enough right now ;-)
I know that. What I meant is that I think it is better to approach Apple and straighten this out once and for all. This way I would know that we have a license that Apple approves of 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.
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.
More clear what I meant?
Cheers,
- Andreas
regards, Göran
PS. Again, I would like also to know why we really *need* to approach Apple at all - if we could solve this by sublicensing. Andrew hinted that it would be better to talk with Apple first, but I never got an acknowledgement on that.
Göran,
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
Hi again!
"Andreas Raab" andreas.raab@gmx.de wrote:
Göran,
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?
Of course it was, I understand that. And there is one thing that could prevent revokation - but of course Apple would never go that far - including a clause making it irrevokable. As far as I have understood these things of course! ;-)
More below.
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!
Yes, but Ted is saying - and I quote: "Apple has forgotten about Squeak. If we bring it to their attention, there is a great probability that they will try to revoke the current Squeak license."
So given what Ted wrote it seems to me not even he thinks they currently "approve" of it. Otherwise he wouldn't think it is "a great probability" that they would try to revoke it, now would he?
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
I am simply basing it on the fact that Apple AFAIK has evolved quite a bit when it comes to open source. And that a "current" approval seems more robust to have.
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
Explain what you mean with "some concerns which are based on no facts whatsoever". And before you do :-) let me reiterate my position in all this hoopla in very some concrete statements:
1. I like the current license.
2. I would like it even more if it was OSI certified or DFSG "free", but I don't think that these changes are worth risking much over.
3. I don't like (what Ted implies) that Apple doesn't like the current license, because that implies that someone can wake them up and the rug will be pulled away from our feet. And simply "keeping quiet" about it seems like ostrich behavior to me. In fact, his posting made it feel even more important to make sure Apple is "ok" with Squeak-L than before...
4. This whole thread was started because we need to decide on *other things regarding licensing*. I repeat: *other things regarding licensing*. Everybody just keep yapping about changing Squeak-L. I don't think that is the big issue here. Surprise! I repeat ever again:
The more important near term decisions we need to make are about how we license contributions etc. I have posted a range of questions on this (SmaCC is the current issue) and asked Andrew explicitly for some advice but he isn't responding, and noone else either including you Andreas.
5. I still would though want to know what sublicensing can give us (regarding "changing" Squeak-L). Perhaps we can get Squeak OSI certified or whatever by simply sublicensing it, which would mean that we don't need to knock on Apple's door at all. If I understand this correctly we just create a foundation (trivial in Sweden at least) and sublicense it using legal advice - it would of course be perfect if Andrew could help out with that. And then that new license could be OSI certified and perhaps even Debian "free" - what do I know. Again, this is not what I consider important - the questions under 4 above on the other hand *are*.
we take this a couple of years down the road then someone else might have very similarly unfounded objections. This is just paranoid.
I don't agree. I don't know what you mean with "unfounded objections" and I don't think I am 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.
Ok, so in short - your advice is for us all to put the head in the sand and hope for the best? Hmmm, this surprises me.
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.
Again, I am not willing to risk *anything more* than Andrew seems to be willing to, I quote:
"I'm game. Like I said, is there any consensus on which way to proceed,
which license to use, and is the community willing to adopt it? Then we spar with the masters, and see how we do. If we fail, the alternative is the status quo (which isn't so bad) or a clean room under a new license (which looks like it would be fun)."
And if you guys screw this up then the entire community will have to live with the consequences of your paranoia.
Oh, just great. What do you mean with "you guys"? Noone here is talking in those terms - I prefer to talk about what *we* should or shouldn't do. I also assume you include Andrew then in what you like to call "you guys"?
- Andreas
No Cheers for me today eh? I still keep my "regards" at the end though.
regards, Göran
PS. There is at least one Apple employee subscribed to squeak-dev. :-)
Andreas Raab wrote:
Göran,
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?
No I don't. I believe that could only be the case if Apple believed Squeak would be DOA after it left Apple. As I've stated before, the license contains 'state' information which does not accurately convey the 'state' of Squeak.
""" The Apple Software is pre-release, and untested, or not fully tested. """
Regardless of the research nature of Squeak, regardless of the availability of the 'Test Pilot' versions. Squeak isn't so 'pre-release, and untested, or not fully tested.' as is implied by the language.
Are the 1.xFinal, 2.xFinal, 3.xFinal versions pre-release?
If the image contained 1,000s or 10,000s of SUnit tests according to this langauge it is untested.
In my experience Squeak has required less 'force quits', 'restarts', etc. than any Apple OS I've used in the last 9 years. (I've not used OSX)
I don't remember seeing this language in the MacOS install for the MacOS.
There is plenty of language which conveys disclaimers of liability and indemnification.
The 'Font' language is another area of 'state' which can change.
There may be others that I am not addressing here.
The license was written very specifically and is no longer accurate.
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!
But, that does not mean or imply that Apple is against revisiting (positively) the license to update it.
Apple approved of APSL 1.0 but the license is currently at 1.2. http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/
Apparently they revisited the license to make adjustments due to increased knowledge of the open source environment in which they wish to operate. [snip]
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.
I don't see why so many people are afraid to learn of the current opinion or intent of the owner of the copyright of the software they wish to base the foundation of their work upon.
I think that it is the most sound and prudent course of action.
If Apple did/does/will have bad intent towards Squeak many of us here would rather know at this stage of the situation.
Yes, I/We understand that Apple could do something nice now and in the future still attempt to revoke. But we would have further improved our legal standing until such time.
I personally don't believe revocation is an issue. It would be bad for Apple. I also believe if that day occurred there would be others with attorneys who would help in court. A revocation precedent would affect more than just the users of Squeak.
Jimmie Houchin
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 currentlicense. I like details. Please be more specific about what you'd like to see changed.
Exactly what is the problem with indemnification? What is wrongwith 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 UScompany 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
PS. Ted, 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 parties.
Thanks again for your willingness to participate.
Jimmie,
I did not see anything harsh from you. Yes, there are a bunch of things that are out of date in the license.
It is amazing that Apple approved the Squeak license in 1996. We in Alan Kay's group were leaving, and Apple was under no obligation to make us happy. It was the cooperation of Jim Spohrer, attorney Elizabeth Greer, and Lab director Don Norman that made this possible. They went above the call of duty. I am still grateful to them.
--Ted.
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 parties.
Jimmie Houchin wrote: [snip]
Yes, I/We understand that Apple could do something nice now and in the future still attempt to revoke. But we would have further improved our legal standing until such time.
I personally don't believe revocation is an issue. It would be bad for Apple. I also believe if that day occurred there would be others with attorneys who would help in court. A revocation precedent would affect more than just the users of Squeak.
A thought I had regarding revocability of licenses.
Considering the foundation Apple has laid for OSX based on the Mach kernel of the BSD OS. It seems that it wouldn't be wise for them to try to kick open that door.
If that became legal reality, then copyright holders of individual pieces of code that Apple relies could be revoked by individual authors. That could become an icky, sticky mess for Apple.
Apple would have much, much more to lose than they would have to gain.
They would actually gain more (potentially) by the friendly gesture of freeing up Squeak than by tying it down.
They really don't have any investment in Squeak anymore other than making sure it doesn't come back and bite them via lawsuits. So proper protection and indemnification is what they should want.
Just my opinions.
Jimmie Houchin
Hi Göran--
...what IS sublicensing?
Sublicensing is applying, *to a derived work*, a new license which satisfies the constraints of original work's license (and any licenses to which the original work's license is subject).
Two things to note:
- Simply relicensing the original unmodified work is only an option if you're the copyright holder. - If one is not the original copyright holder, I would suggest, in addition to satisfying the constraints of the original license, including notices that portions of the derived work are subject to copyright, and that they are made available under license. For example, "Portions copyright 1981-1996 Apple Computer, distributed under license." We could of course make resources available separately for tracking down relevant licenses. My main motivation for this would not be for any legal concern per se, but to make recipients' legal research a little easier. :)
I think a good license would also encourage the recipient to obtain legal advice.
-C
-- Craig Latta http://netjam.org/resume craig@netjam.org
squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Andreas Raab -
Cees de Groot -
Craig Latta -
Gary Fisher -
goran.hultgren＠bluefish.se -
Jimmie Houchin -
Ned Konz -
Ted Kaehler