[Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible

[Andreas Raab]

Daniel,

I apologize for the last message - it was written too hasty. I have in the
meantime communicated with Göran privately (as it involved a number of
things which I didn't feel adequate for a public list). I don't want to undo
anything here - all I want to is that you carefully consider the pros and
cons of what you're planning on doing and. And I'm sure you will do this.

Cheers,
  - Andreas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeakfoundation-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeakfoundation-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] 
> On Behalf Of Daniel Vainsencher
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 12:28 AM
> To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
> Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
> 
> 
> 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
> time).
> 
> Those standards are up at www.debian.org (my personal favorite) and
> www.opensource.org. 
> 
> Now, what exactly about this picture don't you like? can you explain
> what you would want different?
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>