On Dec 29, 2005, at 4:49 PM, stéphane ducasse wrote:

>
> On 29 déc. 05, at 00:35, Andrew Greenberg wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Hi andrew.
> I'm sorry to be silly then.

You are not your proposition!  While I don't consider myself silly, I  
frequently come up with silly ideas.  You are truthseeker and  
academic enough to appreciate that my remark was not intended as ad  
hominem, nor any reflection of my respect for you.  But the  
proposition *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.
>
> No it was not the point of the original idea. People contacted me  
> and asked if I could get an analysis of the license, since
> they are not lawyers and they are not familiar with Squeak and they  
> heard a lot of different points on squeak (squeak license is the same
> as the one of flash, the same as java.......). So they wanted to  
> know what were the problems so that they could evaluate it.

I get it.  I hope my prior, more detailed and offline, remarks were  
self-explanatory.