Noel J. Bergman <noel at devtech.com> said:
>For all intents and purposes, Apple said "HERE, HAVE IT ... just don't ever
>come back to us for remuneration."  With the exception of the Apple
>protection clause and the export clause, what issues do you have with the
>SqueakL?
>
For all practical purposes, the SqueakL is quite allright. The only really
limitative clause (on the bitmap fonts) is void, so one (SqF) could re-license
Squeak without that bit. 

However, if doesn't count as an OSD-compliant license. This has two setbacks:
you cannot call it Open Source (AFAIK, that's a trademark), and you have to
explain to everyone 'yes, it is not Open Source, but really you can use it for
mostly everything you want'. That, plus the arguments that keep popping up,
make a good case for seeing whether it is possible to do something about it.

I'll take this up with OSI, as I think that SqF should strive to (re)license
"canonical Squeak" under an OSD-compliant license. As soon as I have something
back from them, I'll post here.

Regards,

Cees

-- 
Cees de Groot               http://www.cdegroot.com     <cg at cdegroot.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD  1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B