On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 08:50 PM, Jimmie Houchin wrote:

> 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.

I don't think revocability, while a legal possibility, is seriously a 
problem here.  Apple is committed publicly to opern source movmeents, 
and would never want to be seen to be the first public open source 
"indian givers."  (Please forgive the politically incorrect ethnic slur 
-- I couldn't think of another term.)  Legally, it would put them in an 
awkward position, a precedent that would be far more likely to harm 
them than to help them.

> 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. :)

The issue isn't whether, but what, to ask for.

> 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.

Which is what?