ask for APSL? for real this time?
jp1660 at att.net
Tue Jan 6 06:36:12 UTC 2004
I'll definitely second that motion. APSL sounds very good to me.
on Sun, 4 Jan 2004 15:54:41 -0400 Lex Spoon wrote:
>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.
>I grow increasingly frustrated that Squeak is not included in open
>source distributions due to the situation with OSI. OSI will likely
>never be convinced by arguments about the spirit of the license, and
>without OSI's support, we are likely to continue to have trouble with
>other groups such as Debian.
>It should be a no brainer for a lawyer to release one of their open
>source projects using the standard Apple open source license. And even
>if they say no, it will be good to know the situation.
>IMHO, we should not even bother asking for something even more open such
>as MIT-L, unless it is a verbal conversation and it can be preceded by
>some probing. We surely want to present a simple no-brainer proposal to
>the Apple lawyers, and APSL is fine.
>For reference on previous discussion, these two pages have a lot of info
> "A proposed license policy change"
More information about the Squeak-dev