[Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible

[Cees de Groot]

On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 19:23, Ted Kaehler wrote:
> 1.  Apple has forgotten about Squeak.  If we bring it to their 
> attention, there is a great probability that they will try to revoke 
> the current Squeak license. 
>
Do you have any specific reasons for thinking that? My take on this:
- I doubt it (but I'm not an Apple insider at all), as it seems that
they use Open Source and have been reasonable cooperative in ensuring
that what they opened up really is done as Open Source; so it seems they
have a PR interest in keeping the open source community happy,
retracting a widely-used (and enhanced) product would do them more harm
than they could possibly gain;
- If this probability really is high, I rather know it now (so we can
act on it, for example by re-writing the code that Apple contributed)
than, for example, build a company on Squeak and discover that, say,
five minutes before my IPO, Apple withdrew the license. In fact, the
very statement by you as an insider that this probability is high might
necessitate reconfirmation with Apple by anyone who wants to go into
business with Squeak, as it already casts enough doubt...

> I strongly discourage you 
> from contacting Apple.
> 
As Daniel said, too late.

> 2.  One of the best features of the current license is that 
> commercial development on top of Squeak is OK.  Any move to change 
> this is a big step backwards.
>
Absolutely agreed.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation/attachments/20030402/bd9fad32/attachment.bin