Re: Squeak in Debian?

["Lex Spoon" <lex@cc.gatech.edu>]

Jakob Bohm <jbj@image.dk> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:56:15PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Jakob Bohm <jbj@image.dk>
> > 
> > > The term "under your direct control" typically does not refer to
> > > physical access or knowledge of the root password etc., it
> > > usually refers to "under your [licensee as legal entity] direct
> > > [legal] control", that is any computer that the licensee (which
> > > may be a person, company, organisation etc.) has the *legal*
> > > command over, typically by owning, renting, leasing, borrowing,
> > > getting as sponsorship etc.
> > 
> > That's even worse. It means that the license is trying to say that I'm
> > not allowed to install the software on my neighbour's computer, which I
> > have no legal control over, even if my neighbourt asks me to help him.
> > 
> 
> Beware that the following is a bit speculative, IANAL, TINLA,
> IANADD.
> 
> No, that's not my understanding, my understanding is that if you
> install it on your neighbour's computer, then it is your
> neighbor that needs to follow the license, not you.  And if you
> brought the copy to the party then you are actually doing two
> steps: distribute to your neighbor, then install on behalf of
> your neighbor, which is a very common situation typically
> addressed by this very phrase.  

Yes, that is the way it seems to me.  I still do not see a
comprehensible objection to this sentence.  There is a difference
between rights given to an end user, and rights given to a distributor. 
Under Squeak-L there are broad provisions for both kinds of people, but
you get more permissions so long as you are acting like an end user
instead of a distributor.

Are there still any people who think this sentence is a problem?  I
would like to mark this sub-issue as closed.

-Lex