changing Squeak's license

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at netvision.net.il
Mon Jun 23 14:24:40 UTC 2003


For a lossy summary (as Goran said, read the archives before rehashing
the same material):
- Sublicensing seems to be possible.
- Laymen think that it is possible through it to solve the problems
between us and DFSG compliance.
- Now a lawyer is needed to see if common sense happened to be right,
and if so generate an option or two we can discuss concretely, choose
among, and start to implement. 

I've attempted to contact a lawyer that is involved with pro bono work
for open source projects, through the help of a list member, but got no
responses or leads of any kind.

If anyone is involved with other open source projects that have gone
through similar processes, or otherwise knows of lawyers willing to
donate their time for a worthy cause, please email me (privately - the
person in question might not like to appear in our public archives).

Daniel

goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> "Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > Whatever happened with the Squeak re-licensing effort?  Can't we just ask
> > them to change to the standard Apple open source license?
> > 
> > I remember some talk a while back, but never heard any followup.
> > Did anyone ever contact a legal person from Apple?
> > 
> > It is frustrating that Squeak still can't get into Debian.
> 
> I agree that it is frustrating but if you go through the last batch of
> discussions you will find that there is hardly any point in going to
> Apple, because they can only change the license for a very small part of
> Squeak.
> 
> The last word IIRC was that all in all - the best way to change Squeak-L
> would be through sublicensing. But AFAIK nobody pursued has that (yet).
> 
> Finally - before beating more on this particular horse - check the
> archives for the discussions. There were lenghty but fruitful
> discussions both on SqF and sqdev.
> 
> regards, Göran



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list