>  > >  > I beg to differ.  The license *isn't* unclear.
>>  >
>>  >I'm not accusing anyone of having phrased the license in an unclear
>manner -
>>  >my worry is that it's now *become* unclear given CNRI's apparent actions.
>>
>>  How can any action by CNRI make Squeak-L unclear?
>>
>
>Right now, to me as a developer with clients and investors, and their and my
>lawyers to worry about - in exactly the way Paul Fernhout specified in his
>posts. You may seem sure that the situation remains unchanged, Paul doesn't
>seem to. I wouldn't bet on all three sets of lawyers in a typical deal
>agreeing with you, I'm afraid.

If you say so.  I think its ok -- and suspect that competent counsel 
would agree.  If you are not inclined to ask, however, trust your 
feelings, and good luck.  In the meanwhile, since you seem to feel 
that until you get bonded by Disney to use Squeak you can't do so, 
and it is unlikely in the extreme that will happen, there isn't much 
point to continuing this discussion.  Perhaps you shouldn't use 
Squeak, or Python, or Pearl, or Tk/Tcl, or Windows 2000, or whatever.

Patient:  Doctor! Doctor!  It hurts when I do this! (moves arm up and down)

Doctor:   OK.  Don't do that.
-- 
Andrew C. Greenberg		acg at netwolves.com
V.P. Eng., R&D, 		813.885.2779 (office)
NetWolves Corporation		813.885.2380 (facsimile)
www.netwolves.com

Please use werdna at mucow.com instead of werdna at gate.net