On Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at 05:18  AM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se 
wrote:

> Andrew Greenberg also wrote:
>> There was, for a few versions (somewhere between 2.4 and 2.7), a 
>> message
>> that clearly stated that contributions and changes were, unless
>> expressly stated otherwise, made under Squeak-L.  I don't think it is 
>> in
>> the present version, but it ought to be placed back, as a matter of 
>> good
>> legal hygiene.
>
> Yes I second this. And perhaps we could complement the upcoming
> repository/modules system with some license mechanisms - easy way of
> stamping a license on a module and also easily have a list available
> describing what licenses play together etc.

I'm not for the latter proposal.  The LAST thing we need to do is 
facilitate alternative licenses for microscopic pieces of Squeak.  In my 
view, Squeak-L needs to be fixed, yes.  And thus, Squeak must be 
backported to Squeak-L2, yes.  In the meanwhile, apart from some 
discomfort in some quarters and precluding publication as Debian, 
Squeak-L is internally consistent legally, and has no meaningful 
problems.  A proliferation of various, potentially incompatible, and 
mixed-in-image licenses could ultimately kill Squeak or render it wholly 
unusable for most practical purposes.

Squeak-L works great for Squeak in practice -- the offensive provisions 
are not really all that offensive, and the community is solid.  GPL will 
never be consistent with an image-based product unless the image-based 
product is GPL'd.  But there are some old sores that are keeping Squeak 
out of the "mainstream" of open source, and they can be fixed in time.  
Apple has abandoned the policies for license terms that suggest we can 
renegotiate, and perhaps we should.

All we really need is the will to do it.  In the meanwhile, the failure 
to include Squeak in Debian reflects, to me, more of a weakness in 
Debian policies than in Squeak-L, and is a shame.  But in preparation 
for moving forward someday, how about beginning the project of compiling 
a list of Squeak contributors?  Who will go through the image, collect 
the initials and at least begin to guestimate the associations with 
contributors and, ideally, to construct a mailing list so we can begin 
to set up the licensing project.

It would be a real good thing to have a hall-of-fame for those who did 
make Squeak what it is today -- we can begin by putting it up on the 
Swiki.

All this we can do right now.

We can also start to identify issues for the new license (recognizing 
that we can't win unless we can get an Apple, and perhaps a Disney, 
buy-in).  Then, when the political climate is correct, we can make our 
move to improve.  Sooner, rather than later, would be a good time for 
Apple.

Another observation, though perhaps more controversial, would be to 
begin assembling ownership or at least co-licensing rights to 
contributions in a foundation -- this could facilitate licensing 
changes, but won't generate much benefit unless consensus for the 
foundation is pretty broad.

Anyway, I suggest that compiling the list of helpers and putting it up 
on the Swiki would be a really good thing.  As a practical matter, it 
should be easy to start with the current image, but we should also go 
through the old source codes as well, as interim modifications can 
result in losing indicia of the author of an older contribution that is 
manifest in the current image.