goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> 
> ...
> <b>Q: What license should I use for code meant for inclusion in Squeak
> (contributions to the base image/modules)?</b>
> A: In order to keep Squeak "clean licensewise" with the possibility of
> the community being able to change the license in the future, the
> community currently wants all contributions to Squeak itself to be at
> least licensed under the SqueakL.

I would also add to the end of this, something like:  "If you do not specify a license for code that you submit for inclusion in Squeak, it is licensed under SqueakL by default."  (This has been the current practice for some time now.)

> <b>Q: SqueakL compared to the GPL, what are the main differences?</b>
> A: ...
>         The intent of SqueakL is
> to make it possible for companies to base products on Squeak and still,
> by forcing modifications to Squeak to be public, let Squeak evolve
> further.

A minor change which might be nice would be to add the word "commercial" such as: "The intent of SqueakL is to make it possible for companies to base commercial products on Squeak ...".  Perhaps a little bit redundant, but I think it's good to emphasize this intent of the license.

This license FAQ is an excellent idea, by the way, it is sorely needed.

(I would still probably wait to get some feedback from Andrew G. before actually posting it on the Swiki.)

- Doug Way
  dway at riskmetrics.com