Re: Squeak in Debian?
Scripsit Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>
> | "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."
> |
> | What the heck does that even *mean*? Licenses aren't "binding"; they're
> | thinking of contracts. In fact, the whole license thinks it's a contract
> | (which is bad from the start). "Protective of Apple and Apple's rights" is
> | incredible vague, meaning that only this exact license is a safe license
> | for derivative works.
> What's this?
Insufficient data (as quoted: What the heck does this mean?). In the
absence of better information I'd prefer to err on the side of caution:
[X] Renders the package non-distributable
> | This is a forced-distribution clause. It requires that if the Modified
> | Software is given to *anyone*, it must be made "publicly available" (to
> | lots of *other* people) at no charge. This fails the dissident test and
> | the desert island test. It's also a practical inconvenience; I can't share
> | a modified version with my spouse without publishing it.
> What's this?
[X] Renders the package non-free
> | "This License allows you to copy, install and use the Apple Software on an
> | unlimited number of computers under your direct control."
> | Purports to restrict use. Doesn't allow use on computers not "under your
> | direct control", which is a substantial restriction; it probably prohibits
> | it from being installed by a Debian admin onto a Debian machine which is
> | hosted elsewhere. :-P
> What's this?
Confused drafting, probably leftover from adaptations of commercial
licenses that restricts the number of installations.
I'm not convinced that this is necessarily a DFSG problem, but if one
has to get clarification from upstream about the "valid, binding
license" part above, one might just as well ask for this to be
clarified (or left out entirely).
--
Henning Makholm "It was intended to compile from some approximation to
the M-notation, but the M-notation was never fully defined,
because representing LISP functions by LISP lists became the
dominant programming language when the interpreter later became available."
Reply to: