> >	Andrew Greenberg writes:
> >
> > > Neither you, I nor Disney have the power to unilaterally change
> > > the license to something like GPL.  To do so, it will be
> > > necessary for you to rewrite the corpus Squeak from scratch,
> > > because absent a relicencing from Apple, none of us have the
> > > power or ability to change this.  If you are so inclined, go
> > > ahead an rewrite the system from scratch, subject to your own
> > > license.
> >
> >	I don't think that's true. The Squeak license explicitly mentions
> > licensing Squeak-derived work with a different license...
> 
> A different license, yes. GPL, no.

	A few days ago you said:

> It might "seem" to be the case [that one could release a GPL'd fork
> of Squeak], but it probably isn't. GPL does not have the same terms,
> and to the extent the terms are different --obligations with respect
> to export regulations, for example-- GPL is arguably "less
> restrictive." Further, Apple may argue that the failure to include
> the Apple-specific language required by the license is "less
> protective of its rights."  The combination of GPL's requirements
> against more restrictions and Squeak-L's requirements against being
> "less protective" are probably at loggerheads.  There are other issues.

	You used "probably" and "arguably" then, but a flat-out "no" now. Why?

	Also, the word "restrictive" does not appear in the Squeak license;
what did you mean there?

	Finally, please tell me where the Squeak license "requires
Apple-specific language". I see no such requirement.

	At any rate, I disagree that one couldn't license a Squeak fork under
GPL. But it seemed to me that you were saying that one couldn't license
a Squeak-derived system under *anything* but the Squeak license; I
wanted to dispel such a notion.


	thanks,

-C

--
Craig Latta
composer and computer scientist
craig.latta at netjam.org
www.netjam.org
crl at watson.ibm.com
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]