That is quite true. Maybe that would be a good place to start. If who have contributed to Squeak agree to relicense code that they have contributed then maybe that would help influence Apple.

However, before contributor agreement is requested it somewhat needs to be clear what licensing options they will agree to since it would be unknown as to what Apple will agree to. Hopefully most would be friendly towards relicensing to any more generous license Apple agrees to.

Maybe we can start a drive to get consent so that we know where we stand.

Didn't someone produce a list of contributors once upon a time? If that code for creating the list is available maybe it could be rerun on a current image.

Just a thought.

Jimmie Houchin

Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:

As much as I agree with this (and like BSD over any other alternatives suggested to date), merely obtaining Apple's consensus would not suffice. The Intellectual Property in Squeak is owned by each and every one of the contributors (or their employers if developed during scope of employment) thereafter. Not only Apple, but each and every other contributor would also have to sign on to the new license, or in the alternative, the contributions excised.

On Saturday, February 22, 2003, at 11:02 AM, Hannes Hirzel wrote:

...

Jimmie Houchin jhouchin@texoma.net wrote:

...

Due to this I proposed in a different email approaching Apple with a BSD type license. This covers their legal requirements while being a reasonably understood and minimal license much in the spirit of the Squeak community.

Jimmie Houchin

I second this proposal.

Hannes Hirzel

Let us begin by tracking the user codes for all changes in the image since 1.0. Then, let us try to identify all those who have made such contributions. Assuming that all those changes are still manifest in the image, we then try to get all those people to sign on. If there are holdouts, we can worry about how either to excise their contributions, or whether their contributions remain in the image in any case.

I think that is the best we can practically do, and it ought to be enough. As I remember, when last computed, the vast majority of changes came from Squeak Central and a relatively small group of contributors.

Of course, the hard part is finding a substitute license that everyone can agree on. I like the BSD idea, but there are still some who prefer a viral solution, at least for the interpreter code. For my part, i think it is better to go KISS -- BSD is a nice, minimalist, OSI-acceptable license that works. Key signons will need to come not only from individuals, but in some cases from their employers if working on Squeak was within the scope, which means we will probably need to get signoffs from at least Disney and Apple.

It can be done, but we need to decide to do it.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 02:34 AM, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:

"Andrew C. Greenberg" werdna@mucow.com wrote:

...

As much as I agree with this (and like BSD over any other alternatives suggested to date), merely obtaining Apple's consensus would not suffice. The Intellectual Property in Squeak is owned by each and every one of the contributors (or their employers if developed during scope of employment) thereafter. Not only Apple, but each and every other contributor would also have to sign on to the new license, or in the alternative, the contributions excised.

Can you think of any practical way of performing this "sign on"?

Just curious.

regards, Göran