Re: Squeak in Debian?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Squeak in Debian?
- From: Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 08:20:44 -0400
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <20040428141740.GU716@finlandia.infodrom.north.de> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <E1BIwdZemail@example.com> <20040430082314.GA5470@jbj2.jbj.homelinux.com> <E1BJZXb-0000A0firstname.lastname@example.org>
Lex Spoon wrote:
> I've posted a summary of the discussion on including Squeak in non-free:
> I'll edit it as issues come up. There are two open issues:
> 1. Export regs. Are our servers up to snuff for avoiding export to US
> embargoed countries? (It looks to me that we need to handle this
> anyway, even aside from Squeak's license.)
> 2. The "computers under your direct control" verbiage. I still do not
> understand why people object to that sentence, but I put it on the list
> because multiple people have claimed that it makes Squeak
Reading it as plain English, it looks like a strong restriction. However,
now Jakob Bohm has explained that it means the technical legal definition
of "control", and with reference to the way that's apparently normally
interpreted under the law, that seems fine. I'd still love to get a lawyer
to agree, though!
There are none so blind as those who will not see.