There is a form for subsequent licensees at the bottom.  You could 
follow that approach.  Most people just say "subject to Squeak-L" and 
provide a copy of the license.

On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, at 02:38 PM, Karl Ramberg wrote:

>
>
> "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
>>>
>>>
>
>