I'm not a lawyer, and I don't usually have to worry about what Squeak-L enables or impedes, but I find these to be very interesting issues.

My sense from reading the discussion so far (and similar ones from the past) is that there may be several levels of change, each one offering more benefit, and possibly being a bit harder to bring about.  I really don't have a sense of how to sort and group them, but I do think this could be an empowering thing.

Once we had the changes clearly stated and bundled, I believe it would be quite easy to get sign-off from SqC and other heavy contributors.  From there, it would at least be possible to approach Apple regarding their willingness to go along with them.

There is proportionately so little code that remains untouched from Apple that I don't even think it would hard to replace it all.  I don't know that that would really clear the issue but I think a tally along these lines would inform them that their position is like the tail wagging the dog.  This in turn should help encourage them to go along with us just to keep good will and the positive publicity of being in some sense the original benefactors.

To be blunt, perhaps Andrew and a couple of other serious thinkers on this topic might propose (or collect from the past) two or three stages of possible improvement to our license, sorted by benefit.  I will then at least coordinate opinions from SqC, and set about getting an informal opinion from Apple.

	- Dan