How about Squeak-L?

Seriously, there is simply no real reasonable alternative at this 
time -- at least if you are concerned about the legal consequences of 
the licensing.  And there are no other meaningful reasons to be 
concerned about a license.

My recommendation is to adopt Squeak-L, or at least, to dual license (if 
you are comfortable with the risk that a broader license does not 
violate your obligations under Squeak-L).

Anything else creates danger, and in some cases grave danger, for those 
who use the works or derive works from the goodie, and limits the 
chances for broader distribution, and certainly for publication, of the 
goodie.

On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Karl Ramberg wrote:

>
>
> Stephen Pair wrote:
>
>> I wanted to release this under a license compatible with the Squeak
>> license and basically require that derivative works be required be
>> released under the same open source license as the original while
>> allowing both commercial and non-commercial use of the transaction
>> system.  I started modifying the Squeak license, but didn't feel
>> comfortable doing so (because IANAL, and because I figured Apple
>> probably has a copyright on the license itself), so I resorted to the
>> LGPL...if anyone sees any problems with this, please let me know.
>>
>> - Stephen
>
> I also wonder what the "best" license for a goodie is. I want something
> in the spirit of the Squeak license and not as restrict as gpl.
> How about the bsd license ?
>
> Karl
>
>