Re: Squeak in Debian?
Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> "Lex Spoon" <lex@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > Keep in mind that "it is extremely unlikely" was only part of the
> > argument. There is also that we are only liable "to the extent that"
> > our distribution is involved in the case. Further, we can choose to
> > defend the case ourselves if we prefer, just as if we'd been sued
> > directly.
>
> The problem is that Debian distributors would have to defend Apple at
> all.
That is incorrect. Apple must allow Debian to defend the case
themselves, and the distributor chooses whether or not to do so. If
they do not defend the case, then they must pay some legal fees but only
to the extent that the case is connected to Debian's distribution.
Overall this seems entirely proper and upstanding: if we bring down a
rain of legal excrement on someone, then we are liable. Of course, we
are not going to do that.
> > In total, this seems like we end up with the same level of liability
> > we already have.
>
> The clause in question opens up a new kind of liability to the
> mirrors. Before, they only had to worry about the screwy laws in
> their own country. Now they have to worry about everyone's screwy
> laws.
>
> It is helpful to consider what it would be like if non-free were full
> of these kinds of licenses. Americans could be liable to defend
> people for violating Britain's Official Secrets Act. French would
> have to defend people against the DMCA.
That is not quite true. Already these things can happen, if a lawyer is
clever enough. Consider that the area where software is released will
retain some amount of jurisdiction no matter where the software ends up
being used.
In the end, anyone can sue anyone else over anything using the laws of
any country. Debian has followed common sense about these things in
practice, so that we can keep on doing our business.
> > We probably need to have all the mirrors following US export law. How
> > hard would that be to implement?
>
> I don't think the problem is technical. There are a fair number of
> people who do not agree with the Cuban embargo, inside the US and out.
Nevertheless, it is the law. We must follow it. (It is odd for the
same post to be paranoid about obscure potential cases involving
Debian+Apple+Squeak, but then to hint at provoking a fight with US feds
over export law!)
> > The thing is, if a Swiss Debian mirror allows downloads from Cuba,
> > and a US-based server lets that mirror download stuff from the US,
> > then the US-based server is breaking US export law. You can't
> > export from US to Cuba either directly or indirectly.
> >
> > Now, there are exceptions to export law involving stuff that is
> > publically available and/or free. Also, posting on an ftp site might or
> > might not be considered "exporting". So there are at least two
> > loopholes we might be able to exploint. IANAL so I can't tell.
>
> The legal advice that Debian got is at
>
> http://www.debian.org/legal/cryptoinmain
>
> As I read it, it was suggested that the main mirrors should do reverse
> DNS lookups. I don't think that happened, but I am far from in the
> know.
That is a vital piece of information missing from this discussion.
Anyway, once the technical mechanism is in place for main, it seems like
it should be easy to apply it to non-free as well. It seems good to do
that anyway; embargo applies very widely, not just to crypto stuff.
> > 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".
On the page I posted at the beginning of the thread, there is some text
from Apple giving their interpretation of the license. Here's the page:
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/159
Here's a relevant paragraph:
"You are allowed to change Squeak, write extensions to Squeak, build an
application in Squeak, and include some or all of Squeak with your
products. You may distribute all of these things along with Squeak, or
portions of Squeak, for free or for money. However, you must distribute
these things under a license that protects Apple in the way described in
our license to you."
Regarding this specific sentence, can you tell me why it matters what
"direct use" means? It clearly does not apply to us, since we a giving
away copies via ftp to people whose computers we definitely do not
control. The permission that matters to us comes two sentences later:
"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."
-Lex
Reply to: