Michal wrote:
>>>Alan also pointed out that if the Squeak License had not have
>>>included this requirement to share, nothing done at Disney could
>>>have been made public (a feature we will loose when switching to
>>>something like the MIT license).
> 
> A crucial point, too often overlooked on this list by people arguing
> for MIT/BSD-like licenses for future squeaks...

As one of those advocates...

The GPL is an okay license in its context. But that context is not in an 
image based system.

Squeak in general has a very open and thusly open source culture. It is 
a very giving community. Things that are rightly part of the public 
Squeak image are generally contributed back to the public image.

 From my reading of Alan's message he made no such claims as stated 
above. He says in one part:
" I used the important phrase in the Squeak license
   to explain why we put out to open source all
   non Disney content code that could contribute to making Squeak
   more powerful and useful for everyone. "

In other he didn't state the license compels or forces them to return 
back to the community. But rather he taught them of the value of open 
source systems and how it benefits everyone including Disney.

Unless Disney distributed the software outside of its own systems, 
Disney was never, never, never required to return anything base or 
system updates, improvements or bug fixes back to the community.

The fact that they did goes well beyond both the GPL and the SqueakL. 
That is excellent teaching of the open source philosophy. So apparently 
Disney "could" give without being compelled. The rule of law, GPL etc., 
seldom rules out giving by choice even when not compelled. Disney 
attorneys on the other may not generally be givers. However, Disney does 
have open source projects of its own development and it created its own 
license which is Apache Software License 1.1 based.
http://teatrove.sourceforge.net/license.html

MIT/BSD type people give because they are givers, not because the rule 
of law is compelling them.

>>I'm sure I'm missing some subtlety here but isn't that, essentially,
>>GPL?
> 
> It is essentially a late-bound counterpart of the GPL (ie. 'linking'
> is replaced by adding to base-classes vs subclassing/extending them).
> There have been many claims on this list that squeakL is essentially
> like bsd (including by lawyers), but that seems plain wrong.

It is quite mixed. It is much more like MIT/BSD in spirit.
To begin with take the current full image and define explicitly what is 
covered by the SqueakL in this statement:
" If the Modified Software contains modifications, overwrites,
   replacements, deletions, additions, or ports to new platforms of:
   (1) the methods of existing class objects or their existing
   relationships, or (2) any part of the virtual machine, "...

It isn't explicitly apparent as to what is covered by the above and what 
isn't. It may be quite discoverable with some effort, but it isn't 
simple or obvious.

Alan explicitly in his message stated thusly in one part:
" And this is also why we were careful to have Apple grant
   a much more free license than (say) GPL
   (which actually puts really stupid restrictions
   on what others do with the code). "

> The squeak license has some unfortunate clauses (mentioning Apple,
> export, fonts, etc.), but its general spirit is beautiful and
> efficient. I would be sad to see it cast aside, and I have long wanted
> to write a 'version 2' with the cruft expunged - if only for the
> pleasure of seeing a genuinely nice license for late-bound systems.
> But I never found the time for that project...

I personally believe that an MIT/BSD based SqueakL2 would not impair 
Squeak future or growth. Rather I think it would enhance it. People who 
must be compelled to return to community generally speaking are not 
givers and given the option they'll make another choice than to use 
software which compels.

However any person or company which is properly educated to the benefits 
of returning the appropriate parts back to the community does not 
require the rule of law or a license to compel them to do what is 
ultimately in everyones best interest.

Give me the givers and the compelainers :) can use something else.

However that said, I don't think a clearly labeled core/base, to which 
is attached a GPLish viral license, would dissuade many here. Reason? 
Because I believe that most here are givers and don't require the GPLish 
rule of law to contribute. Hence the reasonable bounty of stuff in 
SqueakMap and in the full image which are not a part of the base/core of 
Squeak.

With an MIT/BSD Squeak, we don't have to keep score, who did what to 
whom when, where and how. That is worth a lot.

Enough ranting, viva la MIT/BSD.

Jimmie