On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 02:47:07PM +0100, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se 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"?

Sure, it disclaims all responsibility for anything.

My concern is that I don't understand the legal meaning of the term
"sublicense".  I assume that it corresponds with the common sense
meaning, and that although we could _sublicense_ Squeak under the MIT
license (assuming all the contributors sign off on the idea), the
result would be a Squeak licensed under both the Squeak _and_ MIT
licenses (not _or_).  I would be surprised if the technical meaning
of "sublicense" is synonymous with "replace".

Joshua

> 
> 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