Bert Freudenberg <bert at isg.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote:
> Ordering: SqueakL should go on top (1.2->1.1), as it is the current license.
Ok.

> 1.3: You do not state the difference of BSD and MIT, with a slight 
> preference for BSD du to the court trial, yet in 4. you propose MIT. Why?
MIT is simpler, explicit on the permissions, and more concise with other
stuff. Just read them, they can be printed on a page together.
http://opensource.ilisys.com.au/licenses/mit-license.html
http://opensource.ilisys.com.au/licenses/bsd-license.php

> Add 1.5: "However, SqueakL is free for all practical purposes. That 
> means you can download, use, and modify Squeak as you wish and 
> distribute or even sell your own Squeak-based projects. If your 
> published projects changes something in existing classes or the Virtual 
> Machine, you have to publish those changes in source code, but any 
> additions may be kept private." I put this on the Swiki right away.
Why? this is a "Why do anything about SqueakL?" proposal/FAQ, not a
"lets cheer for our wonderful license" FAQ. We already have that at
minnow ;-) anyway, this information is already in 2. Unless you see a
particular reason to have this rather strong statement in this
particular place, I think we should lose it.

> 2.2: There were companies whose lawyers did not have problems with 
> SqueakL as it stands. So your statement is not correct.
Yes, it was badly stated. I replaced it with -
## For creation of commercial, proprietary products to be possible by
subgroups. Not possible under GPL. This can be done with SqueakL and
probably with APSL as well, though both have enough complications that
consulting a lawyer is probably a good idea. The MIT/BSD licenses are
designed to allow this.

> 4: Did we agree on MIT? I think there should at least be some sort of 
> vote. I'm not opposed to this, but since I do not exactly know the 
> difference of MIT vs. BSD I hope others do ;-)
No vote yet, that's why it's a proposal :-) OSI considers them
equivalent, assuming we remove the no-advertisment clause in BSD, as
BSD's owner has. So that is really the least of our problems.

Daniel