ask for APSL? for real this time?

Craig Latta craig at
Sun Jan 4 22:40:45 UTC 2004

Hi Lex--

> There has been a lot of discussion about Squeak licensing, and most
> proposals require that Apple re-release the part of Squeak it owned
> under a better license.  How about we go ahead and do that step, so
> that further steps may be enabled?  Is there any reason not to?
> If this does not happen, then a large portion of Squeak will remain
> under Squeak-L and thus will be rejected by the Open Source
> Initiative. That status will be unable to be changed until *at
> least* the Apple portions of Squeak are entirely replaced, and it
> puts extra question on the portions of Squeak written at Disney.

	Just out of curiousity... can anyone enumerate those portions? I
suspect I've removed or rewritten just about all of them as part of the
Squat work. I think I'm pretty much left with Xerox stuff currently, and
that could get redone too (whether or not that's necessary has already
been discussed, I won't rehash it here... yet :). (general Squat info at )



Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
craig at
[|] Proceed for Truth!

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list