A post about SqueakL

goran at krampe.se goran at krampe.se
Mon Sep 12 22:40:26 UTC 2005


Hi Tom and all!

Tom Hoffman <tom.hoffman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I hope I didn't mortally offend anyone in the Squeak community by
> posting my blog entry on the subject of the Squeak License without
> discussing matters directly with the community.  I was getting the

Nope, no problem.

> feeling that if I tried to discuss it on every relevant mailing list
> before I even said anything that I'd run out of steam before I got
> started.
> 
> Plus, the Squeak community, based on the various sources I've found
> online, seems pretty ambivalent in general on the subject.  As someone
> who manages a philanthropically funded project myself (SchoolTool,
> funded by the Shuttleworth Foundation), I also can relate to the
> reluctance of project leaders to be seen as "biting the hand that
> feeds (or fed) them."
> 
> And I'm sure you're all generally sick of talking about this

Ehm, yes. :) It comes up every year, and people tend to rehash
everything, just like now.

> One thing that I did overlook, as Göran pointed out, is that even if
> Apple would relicense its code, that subsequent contributions,
> particularly those of Disney, would still be covered by the SqueakL. 
> On one hand, nobody other than Apple has any interest whatsoever in
> maintaining the clauses in the SqueakL that only protect Apple in the
> first place.  On the other, getting Disney's attention on the matter
> seems even harder than getting Apple's, and Disney's overall
> relationship to free software and free culture (Free Mickey!) is
> contentious to say the least.
> 
> However, I don't think this statement by Göran is accurate:
> 
> "If I write code and publish it under GPL or the MIT license - it
> *still* is copyrighted by me and I can *still* change or revoke the
> license as I see fit."
> 
> You cannot retroactively revoke the license on software you've
> distributed, unless perhaps if the orignal license explicitly give the
> author the rights to do so.  Needless to say, any license which could
> be revoked in this way would not be free software by any definition. 
> Therefore, there is no "risk" of Disney deciding the simplest solution
> is to revoke the SqueakL on their part of the code (as he alluded to
> in his email to me).

Well, unfortunately I couldn't find the reference - but I am pretty
certain that Andrew Greenberg (and he should know being a specialist)
explained that the license actually *can* be revoked but that he felt it
was highly unlikely given the badwill it would cause Apple (didn't talk
about Disney then). But whatever. As I said all these issues have been
discussed before - like revocation for example. ;)

> I don't want to force another long thread on you.  Here's what I'm

Pandoras box is open, you can't stop it. Resistence is futile. :)

> weighing right now:
> 
> 1) is the likelihood of getting a positive response from Disney high
> enough to bother going ahead with a petition, etc?

Have no idea. Those who should know have shown substantial "fear"
earlier though.
But who knows.

> 2) would it be better to request that the copyright be transferred to
> the Squeak Foundation than to request the software be relicensed?
>
> If I decide "yes" to 1), I'll come back to the Squeak community about 2).

If you ask me I would guess a transfer is much less legal hassle to
consider for them. Discovering that they are copyright owners (which of
course is also under debate, see Alan's writings on the Squeak Swiki) of
code, and thus liable for law suite, seems more like a problem than
something they can take advantage of. So perhaps they would rather just
get rid of it. Again, just my naive speculation.
 
> I'd also just note that this issue is much bigger potentially than the
> Squeak community.  For example, it seems extremely likely that this
> issue could rate a post on boingboing.net, since Apple, Disney and
> intellectual property issues are three of Cory Doctorow's favorite
> subjects.  BoingBoing had over 2 million "unique visitors" last month.

Ok, sounds cool. :)
 
> --Tom

One important thing to note here is that there have actually been
discussions going on involving prominent Squeakers and I urge you to
take contact with Craig Latta for more information on that subject
before taking any action, ok?

I just talked with him on IRC and he agreed to be "point man" for this.
Ok?

regards, Göran



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list