danielv at netvision.net.il
Tue Apr 15 12:00:15 CEST 2003
Good points. Maybe Daniel didn't misunderstand, but interpreted it
I just put my rated preferences, as in a condorcet vote. Anyway, Goran
is right in that the options should probably be limited to what appears
to be our best bet, which is sublicensing.
Considering which, we need to find out our real, precise legal options
(probably by hiring a lawyer). So maybe the real question is "what are
peoples preferences between the targets we might be able to achieve?"
under those constraints. As in "DFSG compliant", "OSI Compliant" and
"Leave it as is".
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> "Brent Vukmer" <bvukmer at blackboard.com> wrote:
> > http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/100
> First of all I don't understand this page at all. What are the numbers?
> Perhaps Daniel misunderstood it, I don't know.
> Furthermore, this page below that Brent just made unfortunately makes it
> sound much simpler than it is.
> It doesn't really matter if we get Apple to change their license. Apple
> only owns a small part (I have heard the number 20% - accuracy unknown
> but you get the point) of current Squeak and they can not change the
> license for the rest. And who owns the major part of the rest? Have a
> guess. And do we really want to knock on that door? Personally I would
> say no.
> I would be much more interested in investigating sublicensing staying
> within Squeak-L.
> regards, Göran
> PS. I also have an old thread with a license FAQ draft I once wrote
> collecting dust. Should polish it up and complement it with the facts
> that we have learned this time around - there were a few eyeopeners -
> like for example the simple fact I outlined above. And then we should
> put this on minnow IMHO. Brent, if you are interested - could you help
> me out sorting through it all?
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the Squeakfoundation