> From: [...] Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus
> Cees raised a good point though.  Even if we were to rewrite big chunks
> of the system, we would still have to worry about 1) accusations that
> the rewrites weren't "clean-room" 2) patents.  There's really nothing
> that we can possibly do to rid ourselves of potential legal hassles.

Indeed.  I'm an ex-technology startup founder where the company's original
code is still available under GPL.  Nobody wants to take that original and
make a commercial version, because the company will almost certainly accuse
them of having created a derivative work under the terms of the license, and
thus force it to be released freely.

And the patent thing is another whole can of worms.

Even if a complete Squeak replacement was to be created, proving that it was
clean (given Smalltalk's famous ease of viewing of source code) would be a
stupendously difficult task.  I think re-licensing would be the better
option.

I also have an opposed view on what kind of license should be used, whether
in re-licensing or in a new version.  I think it should be as open as
possible.  MIT would be ideal.  In particular, I feel that it should *not*
limit or prevent commercial development or distribution of Squeak.  But
then, as I've said, I started a company based on some code that was
available on open-source terms...

		- Peter