Sure. Let's get you and Andrew and other concerned parties (not too 
many please) to write a new license, and I'll take it to Steve et al.

Cheers,

Alan

-----

At 8:47 AM +0100 2/20/03, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
>Alan Kay <Alan.Kay at squeakland.org> wrote:
>[SNIP]
>>  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
>problem)
>- 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
>pubished?)
>
>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, G–ran


--