"Andrew C. Greenberg" wrote:
> 
> How about Squeak-L?

Sounds good to me. Is legally correct to change/remove words in the
exitsting license that do not apply for a goodie by me, like the Apple
stuff 
etc ?
Karl

> 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
> >
> >