Hi Göran--

> "You may distribute and sublicense such Modified Software only under
> the terms of a valid, binding license that makes no representations
> or warranties on behalf of Apple, and is no less protective of Apple
> and Apple's rights than this License."
> 
> Could we create a sublicense then in which...

	Exactly. My opinion here has always been that, as long as the original
fonts are removed, one may create a derivation of Squeak and release it
under any license that meets that requirement. It needn't even refer to
Apple or the original Squeak license at all. For example, any one of us
could take Squeak, modify it (say, by making it really really small :),
and release the result under the MIT license. I don't think the Squeak
license poses much of a constraint. Strictly speaking, the Squeak
license only seems to apply to the original September 1996 bits. We
could have moved on to a different license on day one, if we'd wanted
to.

	I said this back in '96, but there was debate, of course. :)  I didn't
find any of the contrary arguments convincing.

	My real concern had been over whether *Apple* was within its rights to
release Squeak under the Squeak license, given its previous agreement
with Xerox for ST80 v1. From my own digging, I'm satisified that they
were.


-C

--
Craig Latta
http://netjam.org/resume
craig at netjam.org