Licences Question : Squeak-L Art 6.

goran.hultgren at goran.hultgren at
Thu Feb 20 07:47:22 UTC 2003

Alan Kay <Alan.Kay at> wrote:
> OTOH, there's a reasonably true adage about letting sleeping dogs lie ....
> Cheers,
> Alan

Well, I am not sure we risk that much. We already have Squeak under the
Squeak-L and AFAIK it is pretty hard (if even possible, people are
arguing this) to revoke an "open source" license.

So, sure - they can ignore us but they can't really take anything from
us, right?

I think it is high time to do something about the license and that we
should take the opportunity now when we have both Alan and Andrew
"geared up".

AFAIK we have loosely these problems with Squeak-L as it stands:

- The font clause (if we simply get rid of the fonts Apple could just
skip that part)
- Getting rid of the export restriction clause (I believe someone said
that this isn't in Apples other "free" licenses so that shouldn't be a
- Revising the "indemnification" stuff, this was what stopped Debian
inclusion IIRC.
- Making sure how we want it: Should improvements be published
regardless of distribution? AFAICT Andrew got to this conclusion given
the current language. (Which btw probably means some of us are breaking
the license currently - do you have improvements that you haven't

Then it would be nice with some irrevokability clause perhaps and I
would also like to know how this new license should be applied to my
software - contributions that is.

And once and for all we could nail down the (in)compatibility of this
new license with at least GPL, LGPL and MIT/BSD so that we can avoid
some of the confusion.

regards, Göran

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list