ask for APSL? for real this time?

Andrew C. Greenberg werdna at
Thu Jan 8 12:46:33 UTC 2004

Were you my client, I would advise strongly against it.  It is a recipe 
for confusion and later contentious dispute.  Sure, if code is "pure," 
in the sense of having no derivation whatsoever from the existing 
image, no problem.  But how will we later take any significant block of 
code and actually know what license applies, and to what portions of 

Dual-licensing some of the code will not clarify the issue, nor will it 
solve the problem, if there is any problem at all.  It would be far, 
far more sensible to start from scratch and rebuild a new Smalltalk.  
The fact that nobody has bothered has much to do with the fact that the 
license isn't really a problem.

Best solution is to involve Apple with a plan, AFTER WE OURSELVES FORM 
A CONSENSUS what plan to undertake.  Apple will come around, 
notwithstanding the past rejection by a manager to Cees' inquiry.  The 
approach needs to begin from luminaries like Alan, accompanied with 
lawyers to explain and work out the issues, to management and legal 
counsel.  No manager has authority to relicense code, and nobody will 
ever be fired for refusing.  We need to put together a compelling case, 
and I have confidence it will work, but first:

1) why do we need to do this at all? and

2) if we do need to make a change, what shall we change to.

Until we get OUR OWN house in order, this is all just @#$#.

On Jan 8, 2004, at 3:09 AM, goran.krampe at wrote:

> "Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at> wrote:
>> It certainly *IS* legally dubious, to wit:  if the licensor does not
>> have the right to license the underlying work under BOTH licenses.
>> That is the problem.  If we had the right to dual license our code
>> without violation of Squeak-L, then we could simply license it under
>> MIT as well.
> It is NOT "the problem" for NEW code.
> Please separate the issues here - either you create a modified work
> based on code under Squeak-L and then of course you must abide to the
> rules of Squeak-L - dual licensing under MIT is then not possible. Dual
> licensing under a different license would be possible though, but
> probably not overly useful.
> But if you create an original work of your own - like say brand new
> classes for displaying SVG or something - then of course you can dual
> license it and I *still* would like to hear what would be "legally
> dubious" with that.
> regards, Göran
-------------- 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