On 12/21/05, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
> The middle three in particular have/had very deep pockets and so make
> very attractive targets for suing. This typically means they worry
> about such matters and employ many legally qualified people to check
> up on licenses and risks. The fact that they all had no serious
> problem with the Squeak license tells me that it really shouldn't
> worry us much.
>
Yup. Especially the fact that the Mouse didn't roar tells me a lot (a
*lot* more than a bunch of amateur lawyers from the debian project
crying wolf...)

In any case, before the licensing discussion rages again (which we
cannot have, because it is not the time of year for it): we asked our
SFLC contact to evaluate the SqueakL from the view of a company
wanting to produce software with it. If they go ahead, we may end up
with something we can place on our website - if anything, this could
help a prospective company to take SqueakL (and thus Squeak) as good
enough to merit a full analysis (said company would have to have their
own lawyer give advice anyway, fiduciary responsibility etcetera).