Hmm.. What Daniel did was not what I intended -- I meant for people to just put their name under one license.
I realize there are a whole bunch of issues here, including sub-licensing. It just seemed like it would be helpful to get a sense from the community of what kind of license would be preferred..
Goran, I'd be happy to help you pull together info to update the license FAQ.
-----Original Message----- From: goran.hultgren@bluefish.se [mailto:goran.hultgren@bluefish.se] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 7:19 PM To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]License Poll
"Brent Vukmer" bvukmer@blackboard.com wrote:
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.
http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/87
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@lists.squeakfoundation.org