Good points. Maybe Daniel didn't misunderstand, but interpreted it loosely ;-)
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".
Daniel
goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
"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 mailing list Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org