> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Raab
> 
> See above - if that's the case, then it ought to be really simple for the
> authors to say "okay, you can use it under the terms of Squeak-L". This
> will
> keep the basics of Squeak under a uniquely formed license which seems like
> the simplest solution to me.

My biggest problem with the Squeak License is that it is too Apple centric.
By publishing my stuff under the Squeak-L, I'm not licensing it, Apple is. I
don't even know if I can publish something under the Squeak-L since I can't
represent Apple and the license is between the end user and Apple, not the
end user and myself. Furthermore, the license protects Apple, but what about
me...

One other thing that bothers me about the Squeak-L is the part about making
the modified software publicly available. I don't mind the idea of making
your modifications available for others to use, but since there are no
definitions of terms like "modification", someone could argue that by
performing a garbage collection you are modifying a method -- before the
method had a bit pattern of x, but now it has a bit pattern of y; clearly
the method was modified.

BTW, what is meant by publishing something under both the MIT license and
the Squeak license? How does that work? Does a user pick a license that they
like, or are they somehow combined? If they are combined, what about
conflicting items? 


John Brant