Ok, I created a proposal/FAQ. Please, anyone joining in, read it before
you do.
It is at - http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/103
Those already in the fray, please read it and let me know if anything
there seems wrong/incomplete, whatever.

Lex Spoon <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> I'm not clear on what the big deal about APSL versus MIT is.  What am I
> missing?  From my reading and from what I hear, APSL is fine for all
> reasonable futures of Squeak I'd like to see.
APSL is not bad, MIT is better. See point 1.3, 1.4 for details. 

> Realistically, Apple is very unlikely to put Squeak 1.0 (or whatever
> version it was) under anything but APSL.  This is a license that Apple
> has intensely considered, and they've even released updates to it.  They
> be suspicious of any tweaks we request, and it will lose them some face
> if they release different open source projects under different licenses.
>  Further, we don't have much leverage, anyway!  The best we can hope
> for, from a negotiating point of view, is that Apple makes an APSL v.3
> that solves whatever problems we have with it, and then get them to
> release Squeak-1.0 (or whatever version it was) under *that*.  Are there
> any problems with APSLv2 that are so bad we want to lobby for a v3
> before putting Squeak under it?  I don't think so.
We don't want an APSL 3.0. See 4.2.

> As for rewrites, I am unclear on what is really possible.  If we remove
> the Apple and Disney bits from underneath Squeak one by one, that's
> still a series of modifications. 
No, modifications are defined as modifications to existing classes and
methods. So we replace whole systems. 3.3, 4.3.

> Blah, it makes my head hurt.  Let me
> just toss out that what you are really talking about, as I understand,
> is not making everything clearly free, but instead making everything
> owned by human individuals instead of by corporations.  This seems like
> a useful property, but let it not pass that humans can be stubborn about
> their code just as well as corporations.  If anything, I'm tempted to
> press in a slightly different direction: give full rights to
> SqueakFoundation, in addition to maintining rights for the author.  That
> way SF could make any future license change in one swoop.  But anyway,
> it still doesn't seem clear what is possible in this regard.
An MIT license accomplishes that, because anyone can freely relicense
(1.3). The purpose of assigning copyright (at least for FSF) is to
create a single entity that needs lawyers. That could be a complementary
goal.

Daniel