Hi Göran,

> You make it sound very harmless by using words like "mere existence".
> Additional clauses turns it into another license. Period.

I chose the phrasing to distinguish between clauses that affect the goal of
the license and clauses that don't. It seems worthwhile to me to make that
distinction in order to be able to differentiate between a question like
"should we allow GPL-style restrictions within Squeak" and "should we allow
someone to request a change in the name if you mess with his or her code".
Both can be seen as "just" being different licenses but I am certain you
will agree that there is in fact a difference between the two.

> You are basically saying that you want us to loosen up the "Only
> SqueakL" policy.

No, I want to be able to look at specific situations without having a sledge
hammer as the "known-to-solve-it-all" solution. I want to be able to discuss
these issues without being dead-locked in the kind of overly general
discussion we're having right now. What you are arguing for is an
absolutely-no-excemptions-approach and what I am really doing here is trying
to point out that this approach can backfire on you if you are as inflexible
as you apparently want to be. That's why I am saying please don't argue
exclusively in the abstract, please have an actual look at what such a
situation may look like.

> I don't like that, it would create an explosion of silly 
> little licenses that no lawyer has looked at. And we can
> kiss the "usable for business" goodbye. Just as Andreas
> has explained.

Did I? ;-)

> And how many of these little excemptions would it take to create a
> Big Mess? No, no excemptions. Instead we should IMHO come up with
> one (or possible two) alternative licenses for contributors to pick
> from. I need to read Daniel's latest thoughts but I am guessing he
> is leaning towards this too.

That's all fine, but at the same time it might be worthwhile to consider
that (whatever license you end up with) there will still be situations in
which that license may not address specific concerns that people (or
companies) have. So I still stand by _my_ point which is simply: Try to be
flexible. Acknowledge that there will be situations in which we will have to
deal with specific situations. Understand that the sledge hammer solution
can be problematic and that we should try to do what is best for Squeak and
that this "best" may, at times, to be flexible instead of strict. The better
any new/alternative/combined/community license is the less of those
situations we will encounter. But I think there are always going to be some
cases which just have to be looked at individually.

> PS. Can Alan or you please clarify the ownership question of 
> Disney work that keeps popping up?

I cannot since IANAL and the term "ownership" would have to be interpreted
in a legally binding way. The only thing I can say for sure is that Disney
(including the CEO and the lawyers) knew and approved of portions of our
work done as open source and I am pretty sure they understood (maybe not the
CEO but most definitely the lawyers) that someone else could take what we
did as open source and give it a new direction, make products out of it etc.

Cheers,
  - Andreas