John Brant wrote:
>  > 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?

What annoys me, again, is the fact that you (John) have to waste time on 
this. We are the epitome of programming encapsulation. I still find it 
intensely ironic that while we strive for technical solutions which 
provide modularity and encapsulation, we flock to a legal scheme which 
is the opposite.

-- 
Travis Griggs
Key Technology
One Man's Pink Plane is Another Man's Blue Plane