[Box-Admins] Re: [Squeak 4.0] Final License Text

[Göran Krampe]

Hi guys!

Andreas Raab wrote:
> On 3/8/2010 12:03 AM, Ronald Spengler wrote:
>> I don't want to botch this part. Can the board provide complete, final
>> license copy?
> 
> Sure, here you go.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Squeak License Information:
> 
> Copyright (c) The individual, corporate, and institutional contributors 
> who have collectively contributed elements to this software ("The Squeak 
> Community"), 1996-2010 All rights reserved.
> 
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a 
> copy of this software and associated documentation files (the 
> "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including 
> without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, 
> distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to 
> permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to 
> the following conditions:
> 
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included 
> in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> 
> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS 
> OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF 
> MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. 
> IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY 
> CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, 
> TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE 
> SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
> THE SOFTWARE.
> 
> Portions of Squeak are covered by the following license

Just a comment - this is slightly confusing to me - "the following 
license" and then two companies are listed (not a *license*), and then a 
text starting with "Licensed under the...".

Am I the only one having a hard time "deciphering" this? I presume that 
we are trying to say that parts of Squeak are indeed copyrighted by 
Xerox and Apple respectively, and both these subsets are available under 
the Apache License. Not sure this is clear to an uninitiated reader.

Anyway, so we end up with a MIT + "parts Apache" image, which in most 
practical aspects probably means "I need to respect the Apache license", 
right? Since MIT is more or less not a "factor".

Perhaps we should add a "license explained in plain words" section or 
something.

> Copyright (c) Xerox Corp. 1981, 1982 All rights reserved.
> Copyright (c) Apple Computer, Inc. 1985-1996 All rights reserved.
> 
> Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may 
> not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain 
> a copy of the License at
> 
>    http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
> 
> Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software 
> distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, 
> WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. 
> See the License for the specific language governing permissions and 
> limitations under the License.

regards, Göran