Hi! (what am I doing... Beat the horse! I saw it moving! :))

Bert Freudenberg <bert at impara.de> wrote:
> Am 13.09.2005 um 00:30 schrieb Tom Hoffman:
> > On 9/12/05, Giovanni Corriga <giovanni at corriga.net> wrote:
> >> According to a message sent by Alan Kay to this list
> >> ( http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2003- 
> >> August/065270.html )
> >> there is no Disney owned code in the versions distributed by

Note the words used  ^^^^ "no Disney owned code".

> >> SqueakCentral. If this is true, things would be really simpler:  
> >> Apple is
> >> more open source friendly than Disney.
> >
> > I'm sure a number of long term participants in this mailing list are
> > groaning in horror at the prospect of resurrecting the thread (which I
> > just read for the first time) where this comment first appeared.
> >
> > The above referenced post by Alan is, unfortuantely, another hazy
> > chapter in this fog-enshrouded tale.  If I was to guess what Alan
> > meant (admittedly, a waste of time) I'd say that he meant that Disney
> > *content* (e.g., Mickey Mouse) was removed from Squeak, but not
> > necessarily the code.
> 
> Actually he also meant code. There were "real" applications built on  
> top of Squeak at Disney, see for example Kim's interview at http:// 
> www.mime.indiana.edu/squeak/

I agree with Bert - he meant also code, *but* he was talking about
licenses AFAICT, not ownership which is the subject here (see above).

Now, the license is *one* thing, the ownership/copyright is *another* -
as we all know of course, just reiterating it one more time :).

Let me quote from the Readme.txt in Squeak itself:

"Portions of Squeak are:

Copyright (c) 1996 Apple Computer, Inc.
Copyright (c) 1997-2001 Walt Disney Company, and/or
Copyrighted works of other contributors.
All rights reserved."

So can we please stop confusing the fact that "yes, they carefully
separated what they publically released under Squeak-L and what they did
not release publically" and instead stick to the subject here which is
about *ownership/copyright* in which I still claim (given what I have
been told by people involved) all that code is owned by Disney.

Otherwise feel free to explain the above portion from the Readme.txt.

regards, Göran

PS. Good reading can be found here, especially "work for hire" and the
distinction of "collective work" and "joint work" (I wonder how that
affects us?):
	http://www.lii.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/201.html