A couple of comments -
1. One big difference between the APSL and GPL is that the GPL is, and
has always been, a political device. It is intended to be viral in a
specific way, and the holders of copyright hold the view that is viral
in this way, which adds strength to the wording itself. If APSL is
ambiguous, then the opinion of the copyright holders matters, and none
of them is the FSF.
2. The Larder Code work specifically states that one can combine the
code with other code, and doesn't preclude any specific kind of
combination, so its open to interpretation.
3. I'm curious whether the "When code is released as a series of files"
clause can be ignored by including a big readme that states "Squeak is
not distributed as a series of files, but as an image that combine
different and separate source codes." and a clear scheme for telling
what code has what license. Yet another use for packages?
4. Even if it can't, BTW, some SourcesFile magic could separate the
sources files...
5. A commercial developer would need a lawyer to look at the license to
be safe. Nothing new there...
6. The fact that we need to wrangle here about this highlights the 
difference between APSL and BSDish licenses. Whatever we decide to do
we might still want to work towards a BSDish code base, as outlined in 
a previous message.

Daniel

Colin Putney <cputney at wiresong.ca> wrote:
> Sure it does. The platform independent part of Squeak is distributed as 
> 3 files. The sources files and changes files contain source code. We 
> don't *edit* source code in files, but we do distribute it that way.
> 
> By my reading, (naturally, IANAL) applying the APSL to Squeak would 
> result in a broader definition of modification. The SqueakL only 
> considers additions of methods to existing classes to be modifications 
> of the original work. Under the APSL, new classes would also be 
> considered Modifications.
> 
> Colin