Stephen Pair wrote:
I don't see the need for a "more standard license"... the Squeak license is just fine (IMHO).
I feel most people using Squeak would agree with you, including at least one lawyer on the list who says more or less the same thing as you. That's a major reason to move such an effort onto a separate list and let it sink or swim on its own.
As for me, I especially don't like having to indemnify Apple in the context of shipping commercial software, and there are other aspects about the license I don't want to go into here (I made some previous posts on the Squeak list on the licensing topic quite a while back).
In defense of your point though, this excellent Slashdot article: "Attorney Dan Ravicher on Open Source Legal Issues" http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/06/05/122240 includes a comment by that attorney: "My second suggestion is for open source developers to keep writing good code. After all is said and done, people care about getting the best product they can at the cheapest price. The free software community has already proven to many people that it provides a competitive and sometimes superior alternative to proprietary software development. Although legal issues are important to the success of an open source project, they should always come second to the technical development of the code. It is my opinion that law does not lead the market, rather the market leads the law. Therefore, winning in the marketplace will lead to winning in the legal system, not vice versa. "
Hopefully though, whether or not a "burn the disk packs" effort makes sense at this point for legal or technical reasons, the idea of such a mailing list charter might be useful to other SqF projects (including perhaps documentation ones).
-Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com