License questions.

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at
Wed Jan 16 21:26:00 UTC 2008

I have heard from an IP lawyer directly that the sublicensing clause is 
practically worthless, because "no less protective" can be interpreted 
differently by Apple (for example) than you interpret it. So I wouldn't 
count on it if I were you.


Michael van der Gulik wrote:

> On Jan 17, 2008 2:29 AM, Hilaire Fernandes <hilaire at 
> <mailto:hilaire at>> wrote:
>     Le mardi 15 janvier 2008 à 21:43 +1300, Michael van der Gulik a
>     écrit :
>     >
>     > I'm asking this because I'm about to embark on some significant
>     > changes to the classes in Kernel and Collections for my
>     SecureSqueak
>     > project. I want the end result of this work to be released under the
>     > Apache 2.0 license, if possible.  These changes are scoped to
>     Kernel,
>     > Collections and a handful of other classes.
>     You should not worry about that.
>     Just release your SecureSqueak -- Squeak VM + Squeak image
>     encapsulated
>     -- under the Apache 2.0 license. The SqL grant you this right.
>     OLPC, Sophie, Croquet, ... people are doing that just fine.
>     I am also doing that for my pet iStoa project.
>     The Squeak license is more a community problem because the SqL is not
>     acknowledge as a free software license by the free software community.
> Is this really the case?
> According to the Squeak license:
> "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."
> Is the Apache license no less protective of Apple? By my 
> understanding, I can't sue Apple as the result of the Squeak license 
> nor owe then more than US$50, and by accepting the license, I'm 
> agreeing to indemnify and hold Apple harmless if anybody decides to 
> sue them because of my work based on something derived under the 
> Squeak license.
> The Squeak license also states that any changes I make, even to 
> sublicensed versions, must also be made publicly available.
> What I want is to make a modified version of Squeak that someone could 
> grab and relicense under a closed-source license for the purposes of 
> making a load of money. I will probably follow your example, take the 
> risk and boldly state that my work is released under the Apache 
> license and keep a careful audit log of all changes made, by whom and 
> under which license.
> Gulik.
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list