Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 05:54 PM, Cees de Groot wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 18:12, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
>>
>>> Betcha it would be easy to do so, if only we can get the institutions
>>> in line and some consensus for a license.
>>
>> And that, my dear listeners, remains the $1000 question for today.
>>
>> The issue is of course:
>> - how, when are we going to take concerted action;
>> - when are we going to decide that the institutions are not coming into
>> line and keep hurting ourselves with license discussions and
>> restrictions on what to include for a possible future?
>>
>> As a realist, I don't think they are going to bother. There's nothing to
>> gain either for Apple or for Disney, and there's a decent cost
>> associated with it (I cannot imagine that they are simply going to sign
>> on a license switch without due process involving a legal councel,
>> etcetera). It'd be nice to think that they would be interested in good
>> PR for us folks, 1000-and-some hackers around a great product, but I
>> don't think so.
>>
>> As an idealist, I say we should attempt it nevertheless. However, we
>> should *do* something (which, I fear, SqC should come into action)
>> instead of debating this every 6 months.

It's hard to see an end to these discussions, until some kind of attempt 
is made and an understanding of Apple's intentions or thoughts are.

I think the fear of revocability is the driving factor for doing 
nothing. My naive and non-legal professional opinion is that Apple will 
agree to some or all of our wish or the Squeak-L will remain as is.

If the worst that came out is the Squeak-L remains, we are still in 
great shape and this can become part of an FAQ. Then we can just say if 
you want a license discussion create a Yahoo list. :)

I agree with many that think the Squeak-L isn't a bad license.
I also agree with the many who think it can be improved.
I think it would be nice to give it our best shot.

> I'm game.  Like I said, is there any consensus on which way to proceed, 
> which license to use, and is the community willing to adopt it?  Then we 
> spar with the masters, and see how we do.  If we fail, the alternative 
> is the status quo (which isn't so bad) or a clean room under a new 
> license (which looks like it would be fun).
> 
> Yes, it might slow things down for a while, but hey, what make you think 
> that the kazillion messages we bandy about on this subject aren't making 
> for worse.  There are FAR MORE EXCELLENT TECHNICAL WIZARDS HERE THAN 
> LAWYERS.  IF WE SPENT A FRACTION OF THE TIME WE SPENT LICENSE-LAWYERING 
> ON THE CLEAN ROOM, IT WOULD ALREADY BE DONE.

Excellent point. I think this can go back to Alan's comment about using 
Squeak to bootstrap something better. Squeak isn't the end, but a means 
to get to where we want to go.

> But first we need a consensus for a license.  What shall it be?
> 
>     a) BSDish?
>     b) Squeakish with minor repairs?
>     c) GPLish?
>     d) dedicationish?

I am pro BSDish as I am pro as much liberty as is obtainable. I have no 
problem with commercial development taking place with Squeak. The OS 
community will always have its version of Squeak.

> Moreover, are we constrained in any way by the original Xerox seed 
> license?  (It has been suggested that the Smalltalk-80 image is free for 
> arbitrary relicensing for the blessed seed companies -- is that true in 
> fact?)   Or are we in fact constrained by Apple?
> 
> These will guide our decision.

Good questions. Answers are probably more challenging.
That was very interesting language stated for the Smalltalk-80 v1.
I think we would take it. :)

Jimmie Houchin