> December 21, 2005 8:56 Daniel Vainsencher
>
> I agree that a general (preferably not country specific) professional
> legal analysis of the license would be useful.
> 
> I think the points of interest would be:
> - Risks in it for users, developers and redistributors

I asked Dan for users, contributors, and investors.  I will mention
redistributors.

> - Analysis of its interaction with other code: fixes to existing classes
> vs. separate packages, and MIT vs. Squeak-L.
> - Analysis of the strategy I proposed a while ago for living with and
> eventually replacing SqueakL. The strategy is: dual license all new code
> as MIT/SqueakL, try to replace subsystems rather than fix them. If its
> bad, propose an alternative strategy.

Dan has asked about these issues, and early on I pointed him to
documentation that included your strategy.  Cees has also answered a few
questions for Dan to help get him up to speed.  I got the impression that he
agreed with your initial migration to MIT assessment, but there has been no
agreement yet as to when and if to move forward on this.  Cees has cautioned
that this comes up over and over again.  I would think that for now it would
be best to answer Stef's question using the parameters he set (no change in
license) and we can move to a more comprehensive risk assessment when (if)
the time comes to change our license strategy. 

I also agree with Cees that it would be good to have a general conversation
between the new investor and Cees (language permitting) to get a general
feel for what information they need, so that we can specifically address
their concerns.

Ron Teitelbaum
President / Principal Software Engineer
US Medical Record Specialists
Ron at USMedRec.com 
www.USMedRec.com