On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 02:45:36PM -0800, Alan Kay wrote:
> Hi Daniel --
> 
> I forget what licence Apple is currently using for their opensource 
> stuff, but I've been told it is like BSD. 

No, it isn't.  The confusion might have arisen from the fact that
Apple has taken code from the various *BSD projects, which was covered
by the BSD license.  However, the versions they release are covered by
the APSL.  A quick reading of the APSL shows that it is similar to the
GPL.  Two differences that I noticed (other than all the Apple-specific
language) are:

1. No language explicitly talking about binary linkage (unless I missed it).
It looks as though Squeak might be able to link to a binary library distributed
under the APSL.  We could ask a laywer about this.

2. Adds language broadening the notion of "deployment" over that of the GPL.
For example, if you have a GPLed webserver, and modify it but don't distribute
the binary, you don't have to distribute the source either.  With the APSL,
if you make modifications to the webserver, the the act of serving web pages
with the modified code obligates you to release the modified code.

Like I said, my reading was cursory.

Joshua

> Could you have your lawyer 
> look at it? It might be easiest to get Apple to relicense Squeak 
> using a model they currently use, if it works OK for us. If this 
> looks good, I'm happy to ask Steve to let us do it.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 9:14 PM +0300 8/15/03, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> >As I mentioned in a message to the list about 30 hours ago, I spoke to a
> >lawyer and his advice was to refrain from creatively sublicensing squeak
> >so as to make our problems go away. His reasoning is that the "no less
> >protective" makes such attempts dangerous, because if the license we
> >pick (say, BSD) turns out to be less protective, then we'd retroactively
> >find ourselves to have been abusing Apples copyright.
> >
> >Now, this lawyer is not a copyright/opensource expert, and it is
> >possible we'll find someone more confident about getting smart. But I
> >think we need to start planning on solving this problem by organizing
> >*and by coding*, rather than by PR, lawyers or licensing. I say this
> >quite sadly, because this will not be easy to do :-( OTOH, it could be
> >fun. Anyone care to design a new VM? :-)
> >
> >We would be far ahead of the game if every Smalltalker that ever wanted
> >to share his code as widely as possible were to clearly license his code
> >under MIT, rather the hodge podge of "public domain", no explicit
> >license, "Look ma, I can write licenses, too!" and so forth we have now.
> >We're in the miserable position of having a culture that promotes and
> >values sharing, so that we have amazingly cool software we can use, but
> >doesn't have a clear free licensing culture to go with it, so very
> >little of it is really free.
> >
> >I've heard that the public domain incantation is considered by some
> >lawyers to be unenforcable in the US, BTW.
> >
> >Daniel
> >
> >Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus <schwa at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 02:26:25PM +0300, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> >> > IANAL, but - when the copyright owner gives you the right to sublicense
> >> > something, that means that you can publish it with an alternate 
> >> license,
> >> > replacing the existing license. He may impose limitations on this new
> >> > license, as SqueakL does (the "no less protective" language).
> >>
> >> Thanks Daniel, that's pretty much what I thought.  My confusion is
> >> because, given that the above is a corret definition of sublicensing,
> >> it seems like it should not be difficult to replace the Squeak license
> >> with (say) the MIT license (except for, perhaps, the export clause).
> >> Of course IANAL either.
> >>
> >> "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."
> >>
> >> As a half-measure to get Squeak into Debian (since, as I understand
> >> it, their main concern is their own liability), references to Apple
> >> could be replaced by "the Distributor", with Distributor being defined
> >> as "Apple Computer, or any party who has received and later
> >> distributes the Software or Modified Software according to the terms
> >> of the license".
> >>
> >> This would not remove the problem with the export clause, so Squeak
> >> could not go in Debian-free, but should provide enough protection
> >> to the Debians that they would be able to put it in Debian-nonfree.
> >>
> >> I have no idea at all whether the pros of this approach outweigh the
> >> cons.  Indeed, I have no idea what the cons are ;-)
> >>
> >> Joshua
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Daniel
> >> >
> >> > Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus <schwa at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >> > > In general, I feel I have a decent understanding of licensing 
> >>issues, but
> >> > > one thing I do not grok at all is sublicensing.  Perhaps a 
> >>simple example
> >> > > could help me understand. 
> >> > >
> >> > > If Squeak were sublicensed under a different license, would the Apple
> > > > > license still appear, in addition to the sublicensed license?  Or
> >> > > would the Apple license be replaced?  What would a future user of 
> >> Squeak
> >> > > (after the sublicensing takes place) see when they start poking 
> >> around
> >> > > for the license?
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Joshua
> 
> 
> --