"Noel J. Bergman" <noel at devtech.com> wrote:
> > 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."  


It's not out of the question that Apple would relicense it, especially
if the necesary changes are minor.


-Lex