ask for APSL? for real this time?

Andrew C. Greenberg werdna at
Wed Jan 7 06:10:58 UTC 2004

On Jan 4, 2004, at 2:54 PM, Lex Spoon wrote:

> I grow increasingly frustrated that Squeak is not included in open
> source distributions due to the situation with OSI.

Licenses again.  I find myself rethinking this issue from time to time, 
and imagine I will continue to do so, but this time, as I read the 
reiterated plaint of the "I want it in Debian" movement, the phrase 
above actually struck me -- intellectually -- like fingernails on a 

Why?  Why does this matter?  For years, GPL has been hostile to 
monolithic images, this has been pointed out to FSF, who responded, 
albeit politely (sometimes), that they could not care less.  Squeak has 
prospered for years now without modifying the license, even once, and 
really hasn't shown any serious indicia of harm at any level.  The only 
measurable harm from Squeak-L that I perceive is the vast waste of 
energy and time we have spent debating the issue.

> 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.

I can tell you this for sure: no change of license for a mature project 
is EVER a "no brainer."

> We surely want to present a simple no-brainer proposal to
> the Apple lawyers, and APSL is fine.

When we last considered this, I suggested that we try to reach 
consensus on a license, and there is none.  To be sure, Apple's 
consent, while necessary, is not sufficient.  Unless nearly every 
contributor signs on to the change, it just doesn't matter what any 
segment of us considers to be fine.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2361 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list