ask for APSL? for real this time?

goran.krampe at goran.krampe at
Mon Jan 12 09:14:33 UTC 2004

Hi Andrew and all!

Since you still haven't responded regarding the quote I will for now
conclude that it probably is for reasons unknown to me (what do I know)
and I have instead selected a single question to ask you in hope for a

Regarding the quote: It simply seems to me that you have changed your
mind regarding what can be considered a modified work - and that is the
source for the change in attitude towards dual licensing of


"Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at> wrote:
> 1.  On Squeak-Map acceptance of dual-licensed code drawn from Squeak.  
> It seems to have been suggested that I have left the community with 
> ambiguous and/or waffled views concerning  a licensing question.  I 
> hope with this posting to, at least, clarify what is my position.  As 
> to:
> Whether the community should continue the practice of reproducing or 
> distributing Squeak-developed code (whether in-image or extracted from 
> an image) under a disjunctive dual license including Squeak-L?
> 	It is legally problematic.  It is possibly very dangerous.  It can 
> come back to hurt us.

Reading this and also further down in your posting you wrote:

"An example of this would be code entire written by others outside of 
Squeak and hence can not at all be infected by Squeak-L."

...leading me to wondering if you then think that the following scenario
is also "legally problematic":

I (or a company) write an application in Squeak (no base modifications)
and then license that application to someone else under a license of
my/the company's choosing.

Because as I interpret you the problem here is not the distinction about
modifications to the base but rather that ANYTHING I produce inside
Squeak is (or at least can be considered to be) a *modified work*.

And *that* means, given the language of the license:

"You may distribute and sublicense such Modified Software only under the
terms of a valid, binding license that makes no representations or
warranties on behalf of Apple, and is no less protective of Apple and
Apple's rights than this License."

...that say using MIT is out of the question. Because it is probably not
"no less protective of Apple and Apple's rights than this License".

So Andrew, is this an at least somewhat correct interpretation of the
siuation? :)

regards, Göran

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list