Re: Squeak in Debian?

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

"Lex Spoon" <lex@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 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.

It is still not clear to me exactly what this clause means.  I think
that a clarification from upstream would be useful.  In particular,
under what circumstances would a machine not be under someone's
"direct control".

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu