> Maybe this is just what's needed to get people to *really* start thinking
> about changing SqueakL?

How do you propose doing that without removing the mandatory Apple
protection clauses?

For all intents and purposes, Apple said "HERE, HAVE IT ... just don't ever
come back to us for remuneration."  With the exception of the Apple
protection clause and the export clause, what issues do you have with the
SqueakL?

	--- Noel