Göran Krampe wrote:

>Personally I have actually come to the conclusion that we are pretty much stuck
>with SqueakL. In short - I can't see a scenario where we would convince Apple,
>Disney and all the other contributors (even though the others would probably be
>easy enough compared to the Big Boys) to change SqueakL. And the latest news
>Daniel gave us about sublicensing was discouraging.
>

This is precisely why I think we need a contributor license agreement 
and a legal entity (like SqF) to hold those licenses...with a 
contributor license agreement, SqF would alway have the ability to 
change the licensing terms for all code made available to SqF under the 
contributor license.  The Apache contributor license 
(http://incubator.apache.org/forms/ASF_Contributor_License_2_form.pdf) 
covers all past, present and future contributions by a given 
author...which means, if we wanted to change the licensing terms right 
now, we could use something like the apache license, get all 
contributors (Apple and Disney included unfortunately) to sign it, then 
change the license.  If we required all future contributors to execute 
this license agreement before accepting their code, then we would never 
again have to go through such an exercise in the future (if we needed to 
refine the license again).

- Stephen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3427 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20030819/ed2fea6f/smime.bin