[Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Wed Apr 2 15:44:09 CEST 2003
> I know that. What I meant is that I think it is better to
> approach Apple and straighten this out once and for all.
The "once and for all" part is exactly where you are wrong. Even if Apple
would change the license there is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent
them from *trying* to revoke it a couple of years down the road. Don't you
think that Squeak-L was considered a "once and for all" solution at the time
it was written?
> This way I would know that we have a license that Apple
> approves of
Excuse me but Apple _has_ approved of the current license - they made it!
> and that may also turn out slightly better than the one
> we have now. Of course, they can change their minds in
> the future after that, but that would be much less
And on what exactly do you base your opinion here? Squeak-L was made for all
the purposes you are mentioning, done by Apple. Now, a couple of years
later, you state some concerns which are based on no facts whatsoever. So if
we take this a couple of years down the road then someone else might have
very similarly unfounded objections. This is just paranoid.
> The alternative, which Ted implies - is that the Lion is
> sleeping and we shouldn't disturb it because the Lion may
> be in a bad mood. *If* Ted is right about the "mood" part
> - which information from Cees contradicts - then I would
> like a confrontation now, instead of putting more time into
> Squeak and "live in fear" of the Lion awakening.
Yeah, and play the bull in the china shop. Great idea.
> More clear what I meant?
It is clear what you mean but that doesn't mean I agree with a single word
you're saying. It is paranoid no matter how you put it and you seem to be
willing to risk an open confrontation out of those (completely unjustified)
objections. And if you guys screw this up then the entire community will
have to live with the consequences of your paranoia.
More information about the Squeakfoundation