Freeing Squeak (license-wise)

Cees de Groot cg at cdegroot.com
Fri Mar 14 12:46:36 UTC 2003


On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 20:32, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> All of these may seem trivial now, but they mean we're getting farther
> from a small but increasingly important part of the world of computing.
> The friendly part.
> 
That's indeed an important issue. And I like it to be cleared. The
balance: we're jeopardizing someone's life work (can we call Squeak
Alan's life work? I think we can), it seems. 

My assessment at the moment is that the things at Disney weren't as
clearly arranged as at Apple. As long as we keep a low profile (that's
what I've been trying to do with Apple...), there's little risk.
However, sooner or later someone at Disney is bound to wake up anyway,
will execute a vain attempt to find release forms (from Disney to SqC),
and will immediately call in the legal dogs. The Disney legal dogs you
want to let sleep, I agree with that  *if* my assessment is corret (ok,
a better solution would be to feed them very poisonous dog food ;-)).

Which leaves us in the sticky position of several of us wanting to do
serious work, actual business on top of Squeak, but this situation
effectively prevents it. Clean-rooming isn't a way out either.
Pretending nothing happened is not an option for a serious business.
What do we do, collectively hop over to GSt and redo everything there? 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20030314/18097f3c/attachment.pgp


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list