ask for APSL? for real this time?

Cees de Groot cg at
Wed Jan 7 09:26:16 UTC 2004

John Pfersich  <squeak-dev at> said:
>I don't
>consider the current license to be adequate in any shape or form.  And with
>kind of attitude, I'll not continue its development in Squeak.
Could you please point out the inadequacies? Or is it just "it is not
stamped Open Source by some folks I never met and might be just a bunch
of talking aardvarks"?

As a license for a software package where the idea is to share common
code between licensees, enable commercial use, and not exclude anyone
from the group of licensees, I think it is OK. It has some warts, and
these warts are the cause that SqueakL cannot qualify for e.g. OSI
approval, but it's not too bad (certainly not in the light of the fact
that this license was written well before the whole open source thing
really took off). It's certainly better than the legal jungle that will
be caused by relicensing.

If that's not good enough for you, I feel sorry. But short of a full
re-engineering effort (which I personally think has a much higher chance
of succeeding than a clean re-licensing effort), there's not much one
can do about it.

Cees de Groot          <cg at>
tric, the new way           helpdesk/ticketing software, VoIP/CTI, 
                            web applications, custom development

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list