> I think Squeak users may have trouble finding a valid license. The
> distribution doesn't come with one (AFAIK). And, more important: the
> license on the Squeak Website is on the name of Apple, while the
> copyrights are now of Disney (?) Or am I mistaking?

Apple is apparently the owner of the base Squeak system (and the 68000 Smalltalk system on which it was directly based).  The license permitted the creation of derivative works created therefrom, subject to the terms of the license, which further provided a right to distribute only subject to the following:

"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."

and further providing:

"If the Modified Software contains modifications, overwrites, replacements, deletions, additions, or ports to new platforms of: (1) the methods of existing class objects or their existing relationships, or (2) any part of the virtual machine, then ***for so long as the Modified Software is distributed or sublicensed to others, such modified, overwritten, replaced, deleted, added and ported portions of the Modified Software must be made publicly available, preferably by means of download from a website, at no charge under the terms set forth in Exhibit A below.***"

Exhibit A, in turn provides:

"EXHIBIT A
License. You may copy, install, use, modify and create derivative works of the [Modified Software] "Changed Software" (but you may not modify or create derivative works of the [Fonts]) and distribute and sublicense such Changed Software, provided however, that if the Changed Software contains modifications, overwrites, replacements, deletions, additions, or ports to new platforms of: (1) the methods of existing classes objects or their existing relationships, or (2) any part of the virtual machine, then for so long as the Changed Software is distributed or sublicensed to others, such modified, overwritten, replaced, deleted, added and ported portions of the Changed Software must be made publicly available, preferably by means of download from a website, at no charge under the terms of a license that makes no representations or warranties on behalf of any third party, is no less protective of [the licensors of the Modified Software] and its licensors, and contains the terms set forth in Exhibit A below [which should contain the terms of this Exhibit A]. You may distribute and sublicense the [Fonts] only as a part of and for use with Changed Software, and not as a part of or for use with Changed Software that is distributed or sublicensed for a fee or for other valuable consideration."

Accordingly, Disney's (and many of our) contributions to the code, to the extent they are Modified Software, and to the extent distributed to third parties, are subject to the Exhibit A License.  Some purely original code may or may not be within its aegis, but may well fall within its scope by operation of law or implied fact.  It might not be a bad idea to consider which code in Squeak 2.6 might not be Modified Software, and to assure that express licenses are obtained and granted.  It may be fairly difficult to provide such a package without changing the "the methods of existing classes, objects or their existing relationships" (the latter being the trick to avoid) or making "additions" to them, so most contributions I have considered (in an admittedly casual reflection) are probably Modified Software or Changed Software.

Now, I suppose that the license permits creation of a new license for present day Squeak, with a variation of language to make clearer the relationship between Apple, Disney, third-party contributors and you.  For example, Disney might contemplate issuing a new Squeak License, which has broader coverage than the definition of Modified Software (perhaps akin to GPL, Mozilla, Jini or Apple's new OSS licenses -- taking care not to extend the virus too broadly, leaving outs for entirely independent packages that are not Modified Software), which may be "at least as protective" of Apple and prior contributors as the Apple license.  BSD may not satisfy the constraints, in that it may be read not to include all of the terms of Exhibit A.  I leave that decision entirely within the hands of Disney and its excellent array of IP and computer lawyers.  [On the other hand, if you want to start a movement, write your own proposed license, and offer a modification subject only to your license.  If accepted, something might happen.]

It remains unclear to me that any such effort is necessary at this time, and that the implied-in-law or implied-in-fact licenses derived thereby are adequately clear.  This is not to say the problem isn't worth revisiting from time to time, only that the concerns to which I am replying appear somewhat overstated.

The following is somewhat obligatory so I can continue to practice law and hack in my spare time, please bear with me:  The preceding survey of the license is hardly a comprehensive study necessary to arrive at any reasonable legal conclusions, and it is offered solely to provide an outline for your individual analyses and study of these issues.  None of this should be construed as legal advice, which would require the application of applicable law to the particular facts and details of the software you are actually using.  To the extent you have any concern at all about this matter, you should consult a qualified attorney to examine your particular facts and details and rely upon his or her advices.