Two important issues...
jhouchin at texoma.net
Tue Feb 18 13:51:32 UTC 2003
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> Well, I disagree. I simply want Squeak core to be non-mixed licensewise.
> And I do think that there is a clear dependency here between the
> generated parser and the tool used to generate it. So essentially I do
> think both runtime and dev belong in core and therefore should be under
> Squeak-L. But that is my opinion.
I think Licensing purity is a nice goal but not quite as nice since
Squeak-L has its own warts. :)
I still think it would be nice to remove the Apple fonts, use the
AccuFonts and the new opensourced Bitstream fonts. And start to clean up
the Squeak-L some. Make a Squeak-L rev.2 o some such.
But I do think Squeak-L or better(more free) should be the goal of
I was thinking I saw Cees working on a Squeak image similar to the above
with a cleaned up Squeak-L. I believe he said it was his understanding
that we could change the license provided we respected Apple's right
equal to the original license.
Maybe Squeak 3.5/3.6 would be a good place to make such changes?
Remove fonts? Remove fonts license issues?
Remove unenforceable (export, etc...) license restrictions?
Thank Apple for its contribution of Squeak to the world. :)
Indemnify Apple of liability.
Call it Squeak-L2?
Then have all Squeak-core licensed the same. :)
Okay, I'm over my 2 cents. :)
More information about the Squeak-dev