Licences Question : Squeak-L Art 6.
Jimmie Houchin
jhouchin at texoma.net
Sat Feb 22 16:33:04 UTC 2003
Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> Maybe.
>
> If you know, can you supply more details on why the APSL 1.2 is
> inappropriate, other than not having been in existance when Squeak was
> created?
>
> Looks good to me, looks good to OSI, obviously Apple generally sees some
> merit in it...
>
> Daniel
Based on the below Question from Apple's FAQ, I would think the APSL has
different purposes and reasons than the Squeak-L or BSD based Squeak-L have.
From: http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ps-faq.html
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Q. How did you come up with the Apple Public Source License (APSL)?
First, we studied several of the open and community source models that
currently exist, including the Free Software Foundation's General Public
License (GPL), BSD license, Apache license, Netscape and Mozilla Public
Licenses, and Sun's Community Source License. Drawing from those
examples, we drafted the APSL in an effort to promote open source
development of our software while at the same time allowing Apple to
reasonably protect our intellectual property and meet our business
goals. We are grateful for the many community members who put
significant time and effort into helping us revise the APSL to create
version 1.2.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I don't really know of any intellectual property Apple needs to protect
that is within Squeak. If the fonts must be so considered, (which I hope
Apple won't) they can be removed.
I still believe BSD is the way to go.
Jimmie Houchin
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|