Re: Squeak in Debian?
"Lex Spoon" <lex@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 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.
Debian can provoke litigation even though it hasn't done anything wrong.
As a more concrete example, suppose that SCO was claiming damages for
distributing material under this license. Then every single Debian
mirror would have to contribute to IBM's defense. I don't think that
the Swedish mirrors are going to be happy about the US's crazy law system.
> > > 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.
That is not true. If Red Hat gets sued for distributing something,
the French mirrors are under no legal obligation to defend Red Hat.
> > > 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.
The problem is that it isn't the law outside of the US, so it is
difficult to get the non-US mirrors to care. It is probably even
harder now, since the US has done a fairly good job at pissing off a
good chunk of the civilized world.
> (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!)
Well, I did raise some objections at the time. The way that the
export stuff was done was, IMHO, not the best or most transparent.
I'm not convinced that it would have happened if it had been vetted by
debian-legal. Of course, some people see that as a feature ;)
<snip>
> > > 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
^^^
I assume you meant control?
> away copies via ftp to people whose computers we definitely do not
> control.
The question is, among other things, whether we can make copies on our
mirrors. Is the package upload area under the direct control of the
Debian developer? When it is copied to the mirrors, who is doing the
copying and who has direct control? I don't know about the mirrors,
but I think some of the autobuilders are owned by own person but
managed by another.
Apple's legal department has shown in the past that they are willing
to clarify the license. That is why I suggested clarification (though
it is a bit moot if the other issues hold).
> 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."
This suggests that we could distribute Squeak under any more
restrictive license. But it is rather vague.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: