["Alan's lifework"]
Good, that was the same concern that was bothering me. 

If that's not the problem, I'll reiterate that the problems we face with
the current situation are two - 
1. IP concerns as a risk (which as Alan has mentioned, it's always a
risk) 
2. DFGS/OSI incompatible license as blocking us from many of the best
ways of 
 A. Bringing Squeak to a wider audience
 B. Bringing more open source hackers to Squeak

I think this is a good motivation to go the way Jimmie proposes.

A few comments about the specific steps -

> 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.
Agreed. About YAS - I haven't found any description of it's copyright
holding functions. URL?

> 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.
Please, let's NOT make a license, but select one. Or many. It could be a
good idea to select many licenses if we do this prior to some
negotiation with Apple, in order to keep our options open.

> 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.
Ok, any concrete suggestions on how we do this?

> 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.
That is, make a new kernel that is able to load the same SM packages.
This requires

> 7. Enjoy Squeak regardless.

Alan Kay <Alan.Kay at squeakland.org> wrote:
> >That's indeed an important issue. And I like it to be cleared. The
> >balance: we're jeopardizing someone's life work (can we call Squeak
> >Alan's life work? I think we can), it seems.
> 
> No, you *aren't* jeopardizing my life's work at all! Not even close. 
> My life's work isn't Smalltalk or Squeak but certain perspectives on 
> things I think important that gave rise to ideals I think we should 
> pursue. Squeak is just another computer language that could be a 
> reasonable vehicle for making progress. I'm just trying to help avoid 
> "unnecessary difficulties" given that there a lot of "real and 
> necessary difficulties" that still need to be focussed on.