Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> Maybe. 
> 
> If you know, can you supply more details on why the APSL 1.2 is
> inappropriate, other than not having been in existance when Squeak was
> created?
> 
> Looks good to me, looks good to OSI, obviously Apple generally sees some
> merit in it...
> 
> Daniel

Based on the below Question from Apple's FAQ, I would think the APSL has 
different purposes and reasons than the Squeak-L or BSD based Squeak-L have.

From: http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ps-faq.html
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Q. How did you come up with the Apple Public Source License (APSL)?

First, we studied several of the open and community source models that 
currently exist, including the Free Software Foundation's General Public 
License (GPL), BSD license, Apache license, Netscape and Mozilla Public 
Licenses, and Sun's Community Source License. Drawing from those 
examples, we drafted the APSL in an effort to promote open source 
development of our software while at the same time allowing Apple to 
reasonably protect our intellectual property and meet our business 
goals. We are grateful for the many community members who put 
significant time and effort into helping us revise the APSL to create 
version 1.2.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


I don't really know of any intellectual property Apple needs to protect 
that is within Squeak. If the fonts must be so considered, (which I hope 
Apple won't) they can be removed.

I still believe BSD is the way to go.

Jimmie Houchin