OSD and DFSG are very nearly identical documents (OSD is a fork of DFSG,
by the original author (Bruce Perens)). The difference is one of
interpretation, which I guess stems from different points of view. 

The Debians, according to a mail on this list by Stephen Stafford
(10.2001) object mainly to the indemnification clause. They worry about
the liability, because Debian is a non-commercial entity with scant
legal defenses. Export is something Debian can work around, by marking
the package non-us, and storing/distributing it only from non-us
servers.

I don't know of OSIs concerns, I'm looking at google cache right now. If
you have any references to mails by any OSI person, please send them to
me. Anyway, those are the points I would like to attack, and in that
order -
1. Indemnification
2. Export
3. Fonts (just that we can remove the clause if we remove the contents)

If I'm missing something, let me know.

Where my initial idea is to change small bits of the license to use
tactics used by existing licenses to solve the same problems. For
example, there is a license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php)
that forces any commercial distributor to indemnify any other copyright
holder (which is both fairer and less limiting than the previous
language).

But the main purpose is to understand what kinds of freedom the
sublicensing wording gives us, if any, and bring this to the list for
consideration of our options.

Daniel

Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> 
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> >I am meeting a lawyer tommorrow. He works for/with the local OS/FS
> >association, and I'm going to get an opinion about sublicensing Squeak
> >in a DFSG compliant manner.
> >
> 
> Don't forget to also ask about sublicensing Squeak in an OSI-compliant 
> manner as well.  I believe these were the two main things we were hoping 
> to achieve by sublicensing?  (Along with simplifying the license as much 
> as possible, I guess.)
> 
> If I remember right, the export clause was the problem for DFSG 
> compliance, and the Apple indemnification clause was the problem for OSI 
> compliance?  Or vice versa.  Anyway, perhaps you already know this.
> 
> >First meeting is free of charge, further work would require fees. Any
> >suggestions/ideas/requests welcome. 
> >  
> >
> 
> Thanks for working on this, btw. :-)
> 
> - Doug