Hi,

> > the part about using it outside of the context of Squeak constitutes
> > essentially a dual license. In short it's SqueakL+GPL.
> 
> As I read it it is NOT a dual license. I can not use those files
> according to SqueakL ONLY - if it was a dual license I could. A dual
> license is when the user can *choose himself* which license to use. In
> this case Ian is setting the rules.

Well, fine. Whatever ;-) There's still no problem with it.

> So no, it is a further restricted SqueakL, even though the first 3
> restrictions mentioned aren't that earthshattering  (one note about
> misrepresentation, one about renaming files upon modification, and one
> about not removing notice), they are still restrictions.

Yes they are. And you want absolutely no restrictions whatsoever? Well,
that's a statement I have an issue with (see below)

> ...BUT it includes this passage:
> "Using (or modifying this file for use) in any context other 
> than Squeak changes these copyright conditions."
> 
> Then it further describes how such an act would make the files
> accessible under GPL instead.
> 
> The problem here - and it sure would be nice to hear what a 
> lawyer says on this - what does "in any context other than Squeak"
> mean? If I build a proprietary product that uses Squeak inside,
> is that another context?

I think that's exactly why it is formulated in a somewhat vague way. What I
read into this statement is if you're unsure about it to either ask your
lawyer or (even better) ask Ian for a clarification / change of license for
whatever project you are doing. In short, my interpretation of the above is:
"If you are unsure, please ask." Not exactly unreasonable, is it? I would
very much appreciate it myself to be informed/asked about uses that don't
obviously fall under "Squeak context".

> In other words - does the context "Squeak" mean the distribution of
> Squeak itself as available from www.squeak.org? It sure sounds like it
> could be interpreted that way.

If you are uncertain about it, please ask. If you are unhappy with these
restrictions, please ask. It's simple, really. Since Ian has written this
stuff, he can relicense it for whatever purpose and under whatever terms
that are agreeable to him. If you (and your lawyer) are reasonably certain
that it matches the context "Squeak", fine. If not, just ask. (and, as
always, none of this can prevent anyone from suing anyway...)

> Anyway, it sure saddens me that Squeak has these issues.

Issues? I don't really see an "issue" here. It's just that not all people
have the "I don't give a damn about what you do with my stuff" attitude.
Some people are (believe it or not) even proud of their work and would like
others to contribute to the base if they have made use of that base. I
personally don't like MIT or any other completely
i-dont-give-a-shit-just-dont-sue-me-license very much, as I AM proud of what
I do (well, for the most part ;) So if you hack (for example) Balloon, or if
you extend the Windows font plugin, or if you hack the VM, then, yes, I
would like it VERY much if it would be your clearly stated responsibility to
feed back your modifications to the community.

The balance is what is complicated as I wouldn't want to get the commitment
to sharing into the way of commercial/proprietary developments. That's what
sucks about GPL (but it's a political license anyways) but otherwise I find
the goal totally agreeable. And the current SqueakL defines a pretty good
balance in my understanding - if you hack the base, you ought to share it,
otherwise build and own whatever you want. In an extreme case, ask for a
different/clarified license for the portion you are interested in.

Cheers,
  - Andreas