I agree with Jimmie, consider my proposal amended to read MIT (or 
equivalent) license instead of "APSL 2.0". This gives us more 
flexibility in the future.

This might seem strange, whats wrong with the APSL? well, I started 
looking, and Debian has in the past removed APSL 2.0 packages from 
Debian, so they're not satisfied (actually, they seem divided on it). 
And people linking Squeak into various libraries might want to note that 
APSL 2.0 is not GPL compatible. So yes, there is a reason not to place 
any new code under the APSL, and to prefer MIT or such licenses.

That said, I believe the APSL does allow us wide distribution with open 
source and free software venues, and is a very easy to live with license 
for almost all purposes, and I therefore allow myself to anticipate that 
this is the last Squeak licensing discussion I will be engaging in (Yay!).

Daniel

Jimmie Houchin wrote:
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>> Thanks and congrats to everyone that has worked on this!
>>
>> I think the natural next steps are:
>> 1. Finding for each method in recent Squeak, the names of all persons 
>> who've modified them. The history images should make this feasible.
>> 2. Gathering from all contributors a statement saying "all the code I 
>> ever published into Squeak I relicense APSL 2.0", getting legal 
>> advice on how to do this right (for example, helping people not 
>> declare "work-for-hire").
>> 3. Making it clear what code in the image remains tainted, to 
>> encourage rewrites.
>>
>> But a quick free release would be very nice. Say, Craig, how much 
>> code is there in Spoon that is not covered by this new license and 
>> not copyright Craig Latta?
> [snip Craig's original message]
>
> I think it would be nice for any code relicensed or published beyond 
> this release be license under either the new BSD or the MIT license. 
> That way as code is rewritten and replaced the overall licensing of 
> Squeak improves. I think the only code that should be APSL is the code 
> Apple contributes. Maybe doing a simple BSD/MIT based Squeak Public 
> License or some such.
>
> That way if we replace the IO code with Flow, etc. the licensing 
> improves. We replace MVC with Tweak. We replace Collections with the 
> Traits rewrite. etc...  Then we are left with a small core of Apple 
> APSL code and then other community member contributions with nicer, 
> smaller, cleaner licenses.
>
> Regardless, under the APSL minimally puts Squeak into an 
> understandable situation by the larger programming, open source 
> community.
>
> Thanks to all who worked towards this. This could definitely provide a 
> nice foundation for the future.
>
> Is this where the disassembly of the monolithic image begins?
> Shrink this image. Build back up with SM code, or some such.
>
> My 2cents.
>
> Jimmie
>
>