Craig Latta <craig.latta at netjam.org> wrote:
> 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

Eh, under MIT? Is MIT really "no less protective of Apple...
yaddayadda"?

Or do you mean that since the new license doesn't even mention Apple it
is by definition "as protective" since noone can connect it to Apple?!
He, that would be cool. ;-)

If that is the case .... no, it can't be, can it? I mean, hey - in that
case Squeak-L doesn't mean anything at all... It would mean we could
simply take Squeak and slap MIT on it and be done with. Or? (head spins)

regards, Göran