Indeed.

The problem is not really the possibility or risk of fundamental flaw  
in the license, but an ideological opposition to things not GPL or  
conforming to certain notions of "free."  While I am sympathetic to  
many of those positions, the proposition a lawyer should be engaged  
perform a "risk analysis" for prospective users, as though there  
actually were such a thing,  by any person other than the prospective  
user, is silly.

It appears that there is no ambiguity as to the meaning of Squeak-L,  
it pretty much means what it says.  The dispute seems, rather to be  
whether it should say what it says.  It is what it is, and pretty  
much has to be unless and until we rebuild it from the bottom up or  
get it relicensed all of its contributors.  The longer we wait, the  
harder that will be for everyone.

Or maybe the lack of commitment to such a project indicates there  
really  isn't that much need to change it?

On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:38 AM, Cees De Groot wrote:

> On 12/21/05, Nevin Pratt <nevin at bountifulbaby.com> wrote:
>> I personally think the Squeak License is "good enough".  However,
>> obviously others disagree.
>>
> The funny thing is, as Tim pointed out, that company lawyers do not
> seem to be among those that disagree. Only people who prefix their
> loudly voiced opinions with IANAL....
>
> So I don´t think you´ll get very rich from this proposed business :)
>