> How specifically do you think the Squeak Licence should be adjusted?

I can't see anything wrong with the current version.  As far as I
understand it, it says: "if you improve Squeak you must make the
improvements public, otherwise do anything you want with your own apps
including selling them".  The Squeak license is therefore much closer
to the LGPL than to the GPL.

The first clause ensures that the community benefits in an open-source
style, and the second encourages commercial participation because
original apps (of little interest to most squeakers, but maybe with
huge commercial potential to the company) are *not* infected with the
open aspects.  On the other hand it requires companies to make public
releases of all improvements/fixes to the "base" system (which have
little commercial potential, but are very valuable for all squeakers).

It maximises both the user base and the "public payback", since
everybody will benefit from any "commercial" development of the base
system.

> When Eric Raymond & OSF bless an Intellectual Property license from Apple

The OSF have criticsed Eric Raymond for "blessing" the Applce license
far too quickly.  There are many reasons why the APSL is not an
open-source license, e.g:

	http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/18541.html
	http://perens.com/APSL.html/

Ian