Cees de Groot wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 00:16, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
>>That's great. I think it would still be a good idea to come to them
>>concretely with an alternative license or a plea to transfer all
>>interest to an appropriate foundation (maybe the german squeak group
>>could be a temporary holding place for it). 
>>
> 
> My feeling of the consensus about the SqueakL is that people are
> generally happy with it. So, iff Apple comes back to me indicating
> they're willing to negotiate, I think that 'fixing' the SqueakL is the
> simplest thing that could possibly work. We've identified the three
> clauses, I can send them an image that is Apple font free, and there is
> alternative wording in the APSL for the other two clauses. 
> 
> Of course, I think APSL relicensing would be acceptable as well, but
> they already indicated that this is unlikely to happen as the APSL is
> meant for their active projects.

What I think would be interesting is rather than starting with the 
Squeak-L and modifying it, starting with a better known license (better 
known to the outside world) and getting Apple to provide input.

Squeak currently is far from the project Apple released many years ago. 
While Squeak is rapidly changing, it is not the "pre-release" software 
that is spoken of in the Sq-L.

Squeak has absolutely no bearing on Apple's future.
Squeak has absolutely no impact on any of Apple's current projects.
Squeak has absolutely no impact on Apple's profit structure or business 
model.
Squeak in its current situation is relatively Apple free.
This nothing against Apple. I own many Macs. It is my families favorite 
computer. It is simply just the situation.

Because Squeak is almost really a non-issue for Apple it would be nice 
to have a MIT-ish/BSD-ish license.

Both the MIT and the BSD license have a place to list copyright holders.
Both the MIT and the BSD license indemnify said copyright holders.
The primary difference between the MIT and the BSD according to OSI is 
the 'endorsement clause' in the BSD license.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

And a nice little statement of thanks to the previous corporate caretakers.

Lets try to start with something minimal and try to get Apple to sign 
off on it. APSL is okay for Apple projects. Squeak really isn't an Apple 
project any more. The more minimal the better.

Lets start from where we want to be, instead of where we are leaving 
from. Seems like possibly less work. :)

What Apple will need to be assured of is that they are not losing 
anything of value to them, and that this does not create any risks 
(liabilities) for them.

Apple has already released Squeak.
These licenses cover their corporate backside.

It would be nice to see them agree to such. Then licensing discussions, 
Debian, OSI approval, etc. could be minimized.

Just some thoughts.

Jimmie Houchin