[Squeakfoundation]Operating procedures for a "burn the diskpacks" list?

Paul Fernhout squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:06:08 -0400

Stephen Pair wrote:
> I don't see the need for a "more standard license"...
> the Squeak license is just fine (IMHO).

I feel most people using Squeak would agree with you, including at least
one lawyer on the list who says more or less the same thing as you.
That's a major reason to move such an effort onto a separate list and
let it sink or swim on its own. 

As for me, I especially don't like having to indemnify Apple in the
context of shipping commercial software, and there are other aspects
about the license I don't want to go into here (I made some previous
posts on the Squeak list on the licensing topic quite a while back).

In defense of your point though, this excellent Slashdot article:
  "Attorney Dan Ravicher on Open Source Legal Issues"
includes a comment by that attorney: "My second suggestion is for open
source developers to keep writing good code. After all is said and done,
people care about getting the best product they can at the cheapest
price. The free software community has already proven to many people
that it provides a competitive and sometimes superior alternative to
proprietary software development. Although legal issues are important to
the success of an open source project, they should always come second to
the technical development of the code. It is my opinion that law does
not lead the market, rather the market leads the law. Therefore, winning
in the marketplace will lead to winning in the legal system, not vice
versa. "

Hopefully though, whether or not a "burn the disk packs" effort makes
sense at this point for legal or technical reasons, the idea of such a
mailing list charter might be useful to other SqF projects (including
perhaps documentation ones).

-Paul Fernhout
Kurtz-Fernhout Software 
Developers of custom software and educational simulations
Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator