Doug Way wrote:
> 
> Jimmie Houchin wrote:
>> ...
>> If Alan approaches Steve (Apple), another possibility is a complete 
>> transferal of copyright.
>>    (Yes, you may think I'm nuts. I'm okay with that.)
>>
>> ...
>> From that position it would be easy enough to redo the license to a 
>> BSD or Squeak Community License or some such.
>>
>> From that position we could approach Disney, et al. and either they 
>> re-license or assign their copyrights. My checkbook is still out, I 
>> can write them a $1 check too. :)  Or worst case, we excise their code 
>> into a future-forward version of Squeak.
>
> Currently, re-licensing Squeak, or seeking a transferal of copyright for 
> all of Squeak (which is probably more difficult than re-licensing), is 
> not really an option at the moment, for the reasons I mentioned in my 
> email from two days ago:
> 
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2004-January/072335.html 

I remember that message now.

However, I find allowing Disney to dissuade approaching Apple 
disappointing. I know Disney is not a software company. But Disney has 
released much (if not all) of their Java code as open source under the 
Apache license.

So Disney is not ignorant of open source or the advantages of open source.

Neither Apple nor Disney really have anything to fear or lose from 
releasing Squeak.

It can also be said that neither have much to gain. That is true. But 
both invested in Squeak without motives of explicit monetary gains from 
Squeak itself.

Rather if both signed over to a Squeak Foundation, they could 
potentially free themselves from liability.

The question would still remain. If Apple was generous and acceded our 
request to either transfer copyrights or re-license under BSD or such, 
would Squeak's position be improved?

Would we be better off, even if Disney did nothing?
Would we be in a better position to talk to Disney?  I think so. It 
would demonstrate another large multi-billion$$$ company thought this 
was a good thing to do.

What position would this put us in to create a Squeak base free from 
Disney if necessary?

Just some thoughts...

> To the other Guides and SqC, please correct me if I'm wrong in my above 
> assessment.  For now, regarding re-licensing, we're basically letting 
> sleeping dogs lie as Alan said.

Letting sleeping dogs lies sounds fine. But the license does affect the 
community and peoples choosing the use of Squeak.

I am trying to build/create a business. I don't want a sleeping dog to 
bite me in the behind.
(behind is the correct word according to my 4 year old. :)

And if the SqL is as viral as I think Andrew is leading me/us to 
believe. It won't require one of the sleeping dogs to enforce the viral 
nature and require (or attempt to require) someone to release code that 
was never meant to be public.

Unless I am mistaken, and I hope I am. That places business in a very 
tenuous position.

> So, we probably don't need to keep bringing re-licensing up as a 
> possibility.  (No offense. :-) )

None taken.

> However, sublicensing, which is a different animal from re-licensing, is 
> still a possibility to help us gain acceptance from the open source 
> community.  See my other discussion with Andrew on this.

Sublicensing is nice and can make better appearances. But can we 
sublicense away the viral nature? I don't know that we can do that.

Not trying to wake dogs, stir up a hornets nest or such.
Like Göran seeking understanding. I do need to understand my business 
position and if Squeak is truly viable for business.

Jimmie Houchin