As I've advocated in the previous threads and will make but a mere brief 
mention here, creating a Squeak Community License.

This could be a simple BSDish/MITish license which would be compatible 
with the SqueakL in that it would/could be acceptable for image 
contributions (ie: Squeak proper).

We could encourage any new contributions to be licensed under the SCL.
For items already in the image and such for which there are active 
community members or anyone that would be willing to change the 
licensing of their contributed code to the SCL, those items could be 
changed also.

This would have the effect of changing the licensing direction and 
minimizing what is actually/eventually under the Apple SqL. While 
maintaining compatibility with SqL code.

This also requires nothing of or from Apple, Disney, etc. It merely 
changes the licensing direction for current, future and some past code.
It is a start and a move in the right direction. It does not give us all 
we want, but does not preclude such from happening overtime either via 
relicensing or sublicensing of SqL code or the eventual reduction and/or 
removal of such.

Many here don't believe that the SqL is an issue. If that is true then 
great. A Squeak Community License for current, new and as much as 
possible past contributions would still place licensing within the 
discretion and management of the active members.

Whether you think SqL is okay or needs changed, having a Squeak 
Community License, is a positive move in a good direction without making 
any value or judgement statements concerning the SqL. It is merely a 
good license that the active Squeak Community accepts as its default and 
preferred license.

I, in a previous message did post a sample based on the BSD license.
The advantage of such a license is that it has already been "lawyered" 
and is Open Source and Corporately approved by a variety of organizations.

A link to the original BSD license and template.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

Just MHO.

Jimmie Houchin

Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> For a lossy summary (as Goran said, read the archives before rehashing
> the same material):
> - Sublicensing seems to be possible.
> - Laymen think that it is possible through it to solve the problems
> between us and DFSG compliance.
> - Now a lawyer is needed to see if common sense happened to be right,
> and if so generate an option or two we can discuss concretely, choose
> among, and start to implement. 
> 
> I've attempted to contact a lawyer that is involved with pro bono work
> for open source projects, through the help of a list member, but got no
> responses or leads of any kind.
> 
> If anyone is involved with other open source projects that have gone
> through similar processes, or otherwise knows of lawyers willing to
> donate their time for a worthy cause, please email me (privately - the
> person in question might not like to appear in our public archives).
> 
> Daniel
> 
> goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> 
>>"Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Whatever happened with the Squeak re-licensing effort?  Can't we just ask
>>>them to change to the standard Apple open source license?
>>>
>>>I remember some talk a while back, but never heard any followup.
>>>Did anyone ever contact a legal person from Apple?
>>>
>>>It is frustrating that Squeak still can't get into Debian.
>>
>>I agree that it is frustrating but if you go through the last batch of
>>discussions you will find that there is hardly any point in going to
>>Apple, because they can only change the license for a very small part of
>>Squeak.
>>
>>The last word IIRC was that all in all - the best way to change Squeak-L
>>would be through sublicensing. But AFAIK nobody pursued has that (yet).
>>
>>Finally - before beating more on this particular horse - check the
>>archives for the discussions. There were lenghty but fruitful
>>discussions both on SqF and sqdev.
>>
>>regards, Göran