[Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible

[goran.hultgren at bluefish.se]

Hi again!

"Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Göran,
> 
> > I know that. What I meant is that I think it is better to 
> > approach Apple and straighten this out once and for all.
> 
> The "once and for all" part is exactly where you are wrong. Even if Apple
> would change the license there is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent
> them from *trying* to revoke it a couple of years down the road. Don't you
> think that Squeak-L was considered a "once and for all" solution at the time
> it was written?

Of course it was, I understand that. And there is one thing that could
prevent revokation - but of course Apple would never go that far -
including a clause making it irrevokable. As far as I have understood
these things of course! ;-)

More below.

> > This way I would know that we have a license that Apple
> > approves of
> 
> Excuse me but Apple _has_ approved of the current license - they made it!

Yes, but Ted is saying - and I quote: "Apple has forgotten about Squeak.
 If we bring it to their 
attention, there is a great probability that they will try to revoke the
current Squeak license."

So given what Ted wrote it seems to me not even he thinks they currently
"approve" of it. Otherwise he wouldn't think it is "a great probability"
that they would try to revoke it, now would he?

> > and that may also turn out slightly better than the one
> > we have now. Of course, they can change their minds in
> > the future after that, but that would be much less
> > likely.
> 
> And on what exactly do you base your opinion here? Squeak-L was made for all

I am simply basing it on the fact that Apple AFAIK has evolved quite a
bit when it comes to open source. And that a "current" approval seems
more robust to have.

> the purposes you are mentioning, done by Apple. Now, a couple of years
> later, you state some concerns which are based on no facts whatsoever. So if

Explain what you mean with "some concerns which are based on no facts
whatsoever". And before you do :-) let me reiterate my position in all
this hoopla in very some concrete statements:

1. I like the current license.

2. I would like it even more if it was OSI certified or DFSG "free", but
I don't think that these changes are worth risking much over.

3. I don't like (what Ted implies) that Apple doesn't like the current
license, because that implies that someone can wake them up and the rug
will be pulled away from our feet. And simply "keeping quiet" about it
seems like ostrich behavior to me. In fact, his posting made it feel
even more important to make sure Apple is "ok" with Squeak-L than
before...

4. This whole thread was started because we need to decide on *other
things regarding licensing*. I repeat: *other things regarding
licensing*. Everybody just keep yapping about changing Squeak-L. I don't
think that is the big issue here. Surprise! I repeat ever again:

The more important near term decisions we need to make are about how we
license contributions etc. I have posted a range of questions on this
(SmaCC is the current issue) and asked Andrew explicitly for some advice
but he isn't responding, and noone else either including you Andreas.

5. I still would though want to know what sublicensing can give us
(regarding "changing" Squeak-L). Perhaps we can get Squeak OSI certified
or whatever by simply sublicensing it, which would mean that we don't
need to knock on Apple's door at all. If I understand this correctly we
just create a foundation (trivial in Sweden at least) and sublicense it
using legal advice - it would of course be perfect if Andrew could help
out with that. And then that new license could be OSI certified and
perhaps even Debian "free" - what do I know. Again, this is not what I
consider important - the questions under 4 above on the other hand
*are*.

> we take this a couple of years down the road then someone else might have
> very similarly unfounded objections. This is just paranoid.

I don't agree. I don't know what you mean with "unfounded objections"
and I don't think I am paranoid.

> > The alternative, which Ted implies - is that the Lion is 
> > sleeping and we shouldn't disturb it because the Lion may
> > be in a bad mood. *If* Ted is right about the "mood" part
> > - which information from Cees contradicts - then I would
> > like a confrontation now, instead of putting more time into
> > Squeak and "live in fear" of the Lion awakening.
> 
> Yeah, and play the bull in the china shop. Great idea.

Ok, so in short - your advice is for us all to put the head in the sand
and hope for the best?
Hmmm, this surprises me.
 
> > More clear what I meant?
> 
> It is clear what you mean but that doesn't mean I agree with a single word
> you're saying. It is paranoid no matter how you put it 

> and you seem to be
> willing to risk an open confrontation out of those (completely unjustified)
> objections.

Again, I am not willing to risk *anything more* than Andrew seems to be
willing to, I quote:

"I'm game.  Like I said, is there any consensus on which way to proceed,

which license to use, and is the community willing to adopt it?  Then 
we spar with the masters, and see how we do.  If we fail, the 
alternative is the status quo (which isn't so bad) or a clean room 
under a new license (which looks like it would be fun)."

> And if you guys screw this up then the entire community will
> have to live with the consequences of your paranoia.

Oh, just great. What do you mean with "you guys"? Noone here is talking
in those terms - I prefer to talk about what *we* should or shouldn't
do. I also assume you include Andrew then in what you like to call "you
guys"?

>   - Andreas

No Cheers for me today eh?
I still keep my "regards" at the end though.

regards, Göran

PS. There is at least one Apple employee subscribed to squeak-dev. :-)