Re: Squeak in Debian?
Lex Spoon wrote:
>> > | And furthermore, the worst line of all:
>> > |
>> > | "This License allows you to copy, install and use the Apple Software
>> > | on an unlimited number of computers under your direct control."
>> > |
>> > | Purports to restrict use. Doesn't allow use on computers not "under
>> > | your direct control", which is a substantial restriction; it probably
>> > | prohibits it from being installed by a Debian admin onto a Debian
>> > | machine which is
>> > | hosted elsewhere. :-P
>> >
>> > What's this?
>>
>> [X] Renders the package non-distributable
>>
>> (Absent clarification from the copyright holder.)
>
> I know this thread is getting long, but please respond to my other post
> if you think this sentence makes Squeak non-distributable. In short,
> this sentence *grants* the right to *use* Squeak. It can't possibly
> *retract* our permission to *distribute* Squeak.
It's the only sentence which actually specifically grants the right to
distribute Squeak, implicitly or explicitly. All the other sentences are
simply restrictions, not grants of permission. (I ran through the license
looking for another actual grant of permission, but all the other
potentially distribution-related clauses are "You may not unless..." or
"You may only... if you..." type things, which are restrictions.)
Accordingly, any restrictions in this clause are restrictions on
everything, including permission to distribute.
However, Jakob Bohm has explained why the phrase is not a substantive
restriction on permission to distribute (according to the legalese meaning
of "control", it apparently actually disallows use only on computers which
you don't have permission to use). So actually it's OK. :-)
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: