license

Jarvis, Robert P. Jarvisb at timken.com
Thu Oct 28 18:19:32 UTC 1999


Hmmm.  So, if one wants to charge for a Squeak derivative one must expunge
the Squeak-supplied fonts from the image, replacing them with new fonts.
Interesting...

Bob Jarvis
The Timken Company

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	agree at carltonfields.com [SMTP:agree at carltonfields.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, October 28, 1999 1:36 PM
> To:	StefanRieken at SoftHome.net; squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject:	RE: license
> 
> > I think Squeak users may have trouble finding a valid license. The
> > distribution doesn't come with one (AFAIK). And, more important: the
> > license on the Squeak Website is on the name of Apple, while the
> > copyrights are now of Disney (?) Or am I mistaking?
> 
> Apple is apparently the owner of the base Squeak system (and the 68000
> Smalltalk system on which it was directly based).  The license permitted
> the creation of derivative works created therefrom, subject to the terms
> of the license, which further provided a right to distribute only subject
> to the following:
> 
> "You may distribute and sublicense such Modified Software only under the
> terms of a valid, binding license that makes no representations or
> warranties on behalf of Apple, and is no less protective of Apple and
> Apple's rights than this License."
> 
> and further providing:
> 
> "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.***"
> 
> Exhibit A, in turn provides:
> 
> "EXHIBIT A
> License. You may copy, install, use, modify and create derivative works of
> the [Modified Software] "Changed Software" (but you may not modify or
> create derivative works of the [Fonts]) and distribute and sublicense such
> Changed Software, provided however, that if the Changed Software contains
> modifications, overwrites, replacements, deletions, additions, or ports to
> new platforms of: (1) the methods of existing classes objects or their
> existing relationships, or (2) any part of the virtual machine, then for
> so long as the Changed Software is distributed or sublicensed to others,
> such modified, overwritten, replaced, deleted, added and ported portions
> of the Changed Software must be made publicly available, preferably by
> means of download from a website, at no charge under the terms of a
> license that makes no representations or warranties on behalf of any third
> party, is no less protective of [the licensors of the Modified Software]
> and its licensors, and contains the terms set forth in Exhibit A below
> [which should contain the terms of this Exhibit A]. You may distribute and
> sublicense the [Fonts] only as a part of and for use with Changed
> Software, and not as a part of or for use with Changed Software that is
> distributed or sublicensed for a fee or for other valuable consideration."
> 
> Accordingly, Disney's (and many of our) contributions to the code, to the
> extent they are Modified Software, and to the extent distributed to third
> parties, are subject to the Exhibit A License.  Some purely original code
> may or may not be within its aegis, but may well fall within its scope by
> operation of law or implied fact.  It might not be a bad idea to consider
> which code in Squeak 2.6 might not be Modified Software, and to assure
> that express licenses are obtained and granted.  It may be fairly
> difficult to provide such a package without changing the "the methods of
> existing classes, objects or their existing relationships" (the latter
> being the trick to avoid) or making "additions" to them, so most
> contributions I have considered (in an admittedly casual reflection) are
> probably Modified Software or Changed Software.
> 
> Now, I suppose that the license permits creation of a new license for
> present day Squeak, with a variation of language to make clearer the
> relationship between Apple, Disney, third-party contributors and you.  For
> example, Disney might contemplate issuing a new Squeak License, which has
> broader coverage than the definition of Modified Software (perhaps akin to
> GPL, Mozilla, Jini or Apple's new OSS licenses -- taking care not to
> extend the virus too broadly, leaving outs for entirely independent
> packages that are not Modified Software), which may be "at least as
> protective" of Apple and prior contributors as the Apple license.  BSD may
> not satisfy the constraints, in that it may be read not to include all of
> the terms of Exhibit A.  I leave that decision entirely within the hands
> of Disney and its excellent array of IP and computer lawyers.  [On the
> other hand, if you want to start a movement, write your own proposed
> license, and offer a modification subject only to your license.  If
> accepted, something might happen.]
> 
> It remains unclear to me that any such effort is necessary at this time,
> and that the implied-in-law or implied-in-fact licenses derived thereby
> are adequately clear.  This is not to say the problem isn't worth
> revisiting from time to time, only that the concerns to which I am
> replying appear somewhat overstated.
> 
> The following is somewhat obligatory so I can continue to practice law and
> hack in my spare time, please bear with me:  The preceding survey of the
> license is hardly a comprehensive study necessary to arrive at any
> reasonable legal conclusions, and it is offered solely to provide an
> outline for your individual analyses and study of these issues.  None of
> this should be construed as legal advice, which would require the
> application of applicable law to the particular facts and details of the
> software you are actually using.  To the extent you have any concern at
> all about this matter, you should consult a qualified attorney to examine
> your particular facts and details and rely upon his or her advices.





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list