Hi Cees,

>
>> Now I would like to know if this is possible that we ask andrew and
>> the lawyer that ron contact for the cryptographic
>> packages to write down their analysis and that we publish it on the
>> squeak web site.
>>
> I think that is a good idea. Not that any surprises will pop up - the
> issues with the Squeak License have been hashed out many times,
> including a couple of times in discussions with Andrew Greenberg, who
> *is* a lawyer ;)

yes I know. Now it would be nice if we could have a letter or report
from him that we could put on the web. Because I do not want to give  
them an email
or a thread :).


> However - these are US lawyers. You don't mention what country this
> company lives in, but their analysis may or may not apply to local
> laws.

Sure but already having the analysis of a US lawyer would be something.

> So, if they are really serious, due dilligence would demand:
> - a translation of the license into the local language by a licensed
> legal translator;
> - an evaluation of the result by a local IP lawyer.

This is what we will do via the french organization too.

> But that one should do for any license.
>
> BTW - if you think it's a good idea, you can pass them my contact
> details for any immediate questions. I think between the SqF board
> members, I've been doing the most legal work including more hours on
> the Squeak license than I care to count ;-).

Thanks.
Their problem is really that they would like to see a statement on  
the potential
risk and interpretation of the license by a lawyer. I think that it  
makes sense.
The boss is not a law person nor a developer and he want to show to  
the state people
funding his activities that he is not fooling them.

>
> Regards,
>
> Cees
>