"Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> If the license is untenable (and there is serious reason to doubt 
> whether it is is untenable), 
Whether it is tenable or not depends on whether your requirements for
licensing freedom are your own particular standards at a particular time
(I am willing to take this risk for this venture) or whether what you
wish for Squeak is that it become as free as other shared software. To
the extent that we value that goal, we cannot define our own standards,
and we cannot each evaluate the license according to our particular
needs at a particular time.

There are accepted standards in this area, because people have been
doing this for a long time. That's what OSI/DFSG/FSF "Free software"(*)
are all about. These standards are not arbitrary or detached from
practice - they are written by people that actually share software
widely. If we view Squeak as something whose value lies in being shared,
that's the standard we should aim for, whether we think it will be easy
or not.

> all this still begs the question -- can we reach unanimous consent on a 
> new license?
So, does anyone here think that Squeak's value doesn't depend on being
shared widely?

Daniel Vainsencher
(*) No, that doesn't mean GPL only, MIT is a prime example of a Free
license, by any standards. 

> there are really only two practical 
> solutions:
> 
> 	1) begin rebuilding Squeak -- start with the VM.  Use Squeak to 
> bootstrap a brand new, free VM.  Test by running Squeak on it.  Build a 
> new system.  Have lawyers crawl all over it to assure cleanliness.
> 
> 	2) negotiate with Apple
> 
> all this still begs the question -- can we reach unanimous consent on a 
> new license?
> 
> [smime.p7s]