Realistically, we can't expect Apple to sign off on anything "to the 
left" of the APSL.  Suggest looking to the corresponding miscellaneous 
provisions there, and going with those.  I'll comment on Lex' 
suggestions later on.

While I am happy with anything free, and the more BSD, the freeer, IMHO, 
there is a strong constituency among us that likes the quasi-viral 
requirements of posting changes to the VM.  I suspect that Apple would 
insist on something like that as well, given APSL's patriarchal "post it 
here" requirement.

On Thursday, October 25, 2001, at 08:35  PM, Lex Spoon wrote:

>
>
>> To be blunt, perhaps Andrew and a couple of other serious thinkers on 
>> this topic might propose (or collect from the past) two or three 
>> stages of possible improvement to our license, sorted by benefit.  I 
>> will then at least coordinate opinions from SqC, and set about getting 
>> an informal opinion from Apple.
>>
>
> Wow!  Let's do it, guys!
>
> The big things that I know of:
>
> 	1. Indemnification.  This is a major strain on software distributors.
> Plus, it probably doesn't help Apple significantly: what could they
> possibly be sued about regarding Squeak?!
>
> 	2. Export restrictions.  An impediment to distribution.  In fact, I'd
> think they actually put current ftp site maintainers under some risk, if
> anyone ever stops to think about it.  Again, I'd be surprised if these
> things really protect Apple very much, but what do I know.
>
> 	3. Fonts re-agreement.  Since we can replace the fonts, I'd rather we
>
> 	4. Requirement to post modifications.  This is impossible to enforce,
> so...  why put it in there?
>
>
> -Lex
>
>