"Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> I have brought this up before.  This is something we should not do 
> unilaterally [...]
Why not?

[snip]
> This results in 
> an OSI compatible license.  Would everybody be happy with that, or 
> would we just have to revisit this whole shebang again to satisfy the 
> dissenters?  Would it still be incompatible with GPL? (likely, as APSL 
> was, when last I recall, considered incompatible with GPL).

Since what I wish for Squeak is acceptance in the community of free
software and open source, I think the important issue is DFSG and Debian
acceptance, not OSI acceptance. Though companies might look to the OSI
for the decision, most of the community looks to Debian
(http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/licenses.html).

> I agree that the "minor repairs" approach is the best way to go.  Do we 
> want to go that way?  Or do we want to present a BSD-style license and 
> try to bludgeon it out of Apple?

I think we should come ready with more than one option. If we can have
BSD, that's best. If we can have a DFSG compliant license otherwise
similar to APSL, that's fine too. The APSL 1.2 itself, AFAICT
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00052.
html) is not considered free by Debian. IIUC, the licenses revokability
is one of the issues raised - understandably. 

I think failing to achieve a Debian acceptable license would be a pity.
These people have a clear direction, and it's one I at least agree with.

> Consistent with good engineering practices, let us reach a communal 
> consensus as to what we want FIRST, and then use that to help us 
> develop requirements for proceeding.
I agree, that's a good idea. I know what I want. I know Andreas, for
example, disagrees. Though I don't know why, since he never addressed
the matters of wider audience, and more visibility to other friendly
communities. Maybe these don't matter to him. Andreas? Someone else of
the same opinion?

Daniel