[Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at netvision.net.il
Thu Apr 3 01:28:12 CEST 2003

Andreas, let's review the facts.

Cees has already talked to Apple. You may want to undo that, but that's
impossible, whatever you convince us of. The good news is, on the
surface, they don't seem that unfriendly. Which may be a ruse, but then
life itself might be an illusion, it's empty speculation.

The people that have mentioned the sleeping lions are Alan, Ted, Andrew
(IIRC). Goran and I were *answering that*. I agree there is some risk,
and as Alan and yourself have put it, there always is. Fine, to the extent 
to which we have no choice, we'll live with it.

No current Guides have expressed a wish to entangle the Squeak image
with GPLed code. We couldn't stop other people from posting such code on
SM if we wanted, but that's fine, there doesn't be any reason to do so.

What we (or at least I) do wish to do, is end up with a license that's
up to the standards accepted by free software/open source developers
today. This both to broaden cross-fertilization with them, and benefit
from what wisdom those standards encode (including a lot of lawyer

Those standards are up at www.debian.org (my personal favorite) and

Now, what exactly about this picture don't you like? can you explain
what you would want different?


Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Gšran,
> > 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
> > likely.
> 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.
>   - Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

More information about the Squeakfoundation mailing list