As my old friend Nicholas Negroponte once said when asked about High 
Def TV: "Television doesn't need better lines of resolution, it needs 
better lines of dialogue!", i.e. ....

Cheers,

Alan

At 4:17 PM -0600 3/14/03, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
>There have been some interesting, valid and true points made in this 
>thread from a variety of different perspectives.
>
>Most all of us here would like to see Squeak with a cleaner 
>(language) and freer license. The license we currently have is not 
>bad, but has some ugly spots.
>
>As Alan, Andrew and others have maintained Apple, Disney, and 
>whomever copyright holder can pursue legal action against Squeak 
>regardless of license or language in the license or even merit.
>
>As Alan also states this is a true situation regardless of 
>development language, environment or system you choose to develop or 
>base a business upon.
>
>Even though this is the case, most here would still like to see a 
>better license. However there are probably wise and prudent steps 
>towards that goal.
>
>Despite what Apple et al can do, with regard to Squeak we have no 
>reason to believe they will do. Currently there is little to gain. 
>IMO.
>Maybe naively, I don't see them as the bad guys.
>
>The worst case scenario has been stated.
>I personally don't see that happening. At least I hope not.
>
>An offer to form a Foundation with Yet Another Society.
>And there still is the opportunity to form our own non-profit corp 
>or foundation. Whichever direction the community thinks is best.
>
>It has also been stated that a significant part of Squeak has been 
>authored externally from Apple or Disney.
>
>It seems that to me a prudent course of action to accomplish the 
>goals we want could be something like this...
>(number does not form order, merely a list)
>
>1. Form a Foundation which can be the maintainer of a new Squeak 
>license and copyright holder for code individual or corporations 
>which to assign.
>
>2. Create a new license for the direction we would like Squeak to 
>move. New code and code with which the copyright holders would like 
>to change over to.
>
>3. As we strip the image and move towards SM and the new 3.6+ 
>images, ascertain ownership of code and work towards relicensing as 
>much code as possible with the new license.
>
>4. Know what code remains under the existing SqL either via Apple or Disney.
>
>5. Contact Apple to make effort to relicense, preferably with the 
>new community license. Disney too, as necessary.
>
>6. If relicensing is successful, enjoy.
>    If not, work towards using Squeak to bootstrap the new community 
>licensed version.
>
>7. Enjoy Squeak regardless.
>    We cannot control or predict Apple or Disney.
>    The likelihood of action via Apple or Disney is probably low.
>    (As Alan said?)
>    We can control how we proceed from here to get to where we want to go.
>
>Am I assessing the situation accurately?
>Does this sound like a reasonable course of action?
>Am I forgetting anything?
>
>There is much we can do. There is much we are in control of.
>Lets be positively proactive and work towards the end we want.
>
>We can work towards much of the above while Cees awaits replys from 
>his contacts at Apple. If further discussions are then needed we can 
>be in a better position.
>
>Thoughts, opinions. :)
>
>Jimmie Houchin


--