Peter Crowther <peter at crowther.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
Anything we can get relicensed, we should. What we can't relicense, we
can rewrite.

> 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.  
Seems like we're all in violent agreement so far...

Any dissenting views?

Daniel