How can you remove the Apple-specific provisions without removing the 
corresponding content?

One approach would be to replace the "no less favorable to Apple" 
language with "no less favorable to Licensors," where the latter term is 
defined to include Apple and subsequent licensors, but I'm not sure that 
is a good thing.  Right now, all we have to do is to talk Apple into 
changing its mind.  If we promote a more "generic" agreement that 
includes interim developers in the benefit of the "no less favorable" 
provision, then we will need ALL subsequent developers to sign on to the 
license change.

On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, at 02:31 PM, Stephen Pair wrote:

> Andrew, would you mind doing a templated version of the SqueakL that
> removes the apple  specific and font related things?  I started doing
> that myself, but when I got into the stuff about exporting and citing
> specific statutes, I became less confident about what I was doing.
> Maybe it's already been done?
>
> - Stephen
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>> [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On
>> Behalf Of Andrew C. Greenberg
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 1:25 PM
>> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>> Subject: Re: Licenses for goodies Re: [ANN] kats-0.1a - a
>> smalltalk transaction service
>>
>>
>> How about Squeak-L?
>>
>> Seriously, there is simply no real reasonable alternative at this
>> time -- at least if you are concerned about the legal consequences of
>> the licensing.  And there are no other meaningful reasons to be
>> concerned about a license.
>>
>> My recommendation is to adopt Squeak-L, or at least, to dual
>> license (if
>> you are comfortable with the risk that a broader license does not
>> violate your obligations under Squeak-L).
>>
>> Anything else creates danger, and in some cases grave danger,
>> for those
>> who use the works or derive works from the goodie, and limits the
>> chances for broader distribution, and certainly for
>> publication, of the
>> goodie.
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Karl Ramberg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stephen Pair wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wanted to release this under a license compatible with
>> the Squeak
>>>> license and basically require that derivative works be required be
>>>> released under the same open source license as the original while
>>>> allowing both commercial and non-commercial use of the transaction
>>>> system.  I started modifying the Squeak license, but didn't feel
>>>> comfortable doing so (because IANAL, and because I figured Apple
>>>> probably has a copyright on the license itself), so I
>> resorted to the
>>>> LGPL...if anyone sees any problems with this, please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> - Stephen
>>>
>>> I also wonder what the "best" license for a goodie is. I want
>>> something in the spirit of the Squeak license and not as
>> restrict as
>>> gpl. How about the bsd license ?
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>