On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 05:55  AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> Colin Putney wrote:
>> In many cases
>> we'll get responses like, "Sure, but Disney owns the copyright on 
>> everything I did between this date and that." That's fine. It 
>> whittles down the encumbered code a bit and ads to our knowledge >> base.
>> At some point, between new code being free and older code being 
>> freed, we'll have a really clear set of core modules that we can take 
>> to Apple and/or Disney. I'm sure that better preparation on our part 
>> will make that negotiation easier.
>
> Not Disney. Alan pointed out multiple times that all additions to the 
> base system are not Disney's. The "real stuff" done while SqC was at 
> Disney has never been released publicly. They very strictly 
> distinguished between modifications of the base system which were 
> published, and work building on that involving all kinds of shiny 
> stuff that Disney is famous for (*).

I don't remember any claims of that nature. Are you saying that Disney 
does not own the copyright of the published modifications to the base 
system? If so, who does? My understanding is that Disney owns the 
copyright and has published the modifications under the terms of  the 
SqueakL. There's a big difference between publishing something and 
abandoning copyright.

> The great thing is that SqueakL allowed this! You _can_ do serious 
> work with Squeak under the current license. Otherwise Disney's lawyers 
> would have very much objected.
>
> This whole discussion is very much a tempest in a teacup. To put it 
> into perspective: There is no problem whatsoever with providing 
> downloads of Squeak for Windows or Macintosh or even selling it. There 
> is also no problem with providing downloads for Linux (we will even 
> have RPMs for the next release!). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

My interest in relicensing has nothing to do with what the SqueakL does 
or does not allow me to do with Squeak. I've used Squeak for both 
commercial and free projects and I won't hesitate to do so in the 
future.

I want Squeak relicensed for marketing reasons.

Making Squeak available under an OSI- and FSF-approved license would 
make it "legitimate" in the Open Source world. In turn, having an Open 
Source implementation makes Smalltalk legitimate. This is an avenue for 
getting more people using and contributing to Squeak.

Open Source legitimacy also has effects in the commercial world. 
Managers may be more willing to use Squeak commercially if it's 
perceived as being mainstream, and blessing by quasi-official bodies 
helps.

Finally, distribution by Debian is about more than just providing 
binary downloads for Linux. It's about lowering the barriers to entry. 
Being able to install Squeak with dselect is way easier than hunting 
down an installer on the web. Heck, just having it come up in the list 
of available packages will put it in front of thousands of eyeballs we 
couldn't otherwise reach. And again it's official blessing from an 
independent and highly respected organization.

The long-term prosperity of the Squeak (and Smalltalk) community 
depends on attracting and retaining a larger base of users and 
developers. The Squeak license may not be a practical impediment, but 
it is undoubtedly a social impediment.

Colin