Simon Michael <simon at joyful.com> wrote:
> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:57:00 -0800
> From: Simon Michael <simon at joyful.com>
> Subject: Re: Problems w/Squeak on Linux
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> reply-to: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> 
> I usually agree with you Lex, but Debian is right not to make 
> exceptions. They set a clear policy and they stick to it as best they 
> can. Squeak is one project among thousands; it doesn't make sense for 
> them to assume any legal risk at all.

Simon, I agree that Debian should stick by their principles.  They are
not.  The Debian Social Contract explicitly says that they will support
software their users want, even when it is not considered free by
Debian's standards.

	http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html

The reason they reject Squeak, even from the "non-free" part of Debian,
is that they are afraid of the indemnification clause.

Chris, I disagree on your three things that are bad for Debian and free
software.  Export laws are a problem with Debian, though I don't think
they should be--it is quite possible illegal for an American company to
post software *without* such an export provisione  If Debian had the
legal skills to back up their legal paranoia, they'd probably be making
similar legal statements on their own distributions, so it strikes me as
hypocritical that they complain when a professional lawyer is 1/10th as
paranoid as they are and acts accordingly.

The fonts clause of Squeak *might* be a problem, but (a) maybe not,
because bitmap fonts can't be controlled, and (b) are not a problem for
distributing Squeak images that do not include the fonts.

Indemnification clauses in general are not a problem at all for Debian
freeness.  Look at APSL, for example.  It's standard legal hygene.

Also, Chris, I think it is more accurate to view Squeak-L as an early
open-source license by Apple, and thus as a precursor to APSL, than as a
modified comercial license.  It is also worth thinking about the fact
that the Apple lawyers were professionals who were explicitly working on
the task of open sourcing Squeak.  These are not guys who were trying to
trick us; these were *professionals* doing the best to release an open
source license before the term "open source" had even been named.  It
blows me away that Debian is trusting their own legal analysis, over
that of professional lawyers working on our side.

Matej, how can FreeBSD take such an incredible risk??  Surely they fear
getting sued into oblivion!  It's funny you should mention that, though,
because I have been meaning to read more about FreeBSD.  I like
everything about Debian except that religion about freeness....

Cees, the installers idea is great, if anyone ever has time to pursue
it.  I'm not planning to do it myself.

Everyone, I do believe we could get Apple to change the license to APSL.
 We'd also need to round up all contributors to Squeak and ask for the
same thing.  I even think it's worth doing, but the idea got hammered
last time I mentioned it.  We would want to present a united front
before trying to do that, so I let it drop.  Please no one send any
random emails to Apple.  Anyone curious might want to peek at the thread
from the last time:

	http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2004-January/071
949.html

I dropped it, because -- like with getting into Debian at all -- I just
don't think it's that important.  You can't spend forever trying to
cooperate with idiots who don't care about their own interests. 
Everyone who wants to use Squeak can, and they have the source code, and
they can build pretty much anything they want in it.  Why keep talking
about it, now that all of this is true?  The real battle is already won.

-Lex