On 20-Jun-06, at 12:25 PM, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
>
> Tim you are pointing a very important point. After the announce of the
> change to APSL2.0 of Squeak1.1, we have to ask ourself which part of
> {Squeak3.8}\{Squeak1.1} can be relicensed and probably much more
> important which part cannot be relicensed.

I very much doubt that there are any parts that cannot be relicensed,  
if in fact it is even really neccesary. What would be wrong with  
taking the position that the original squeak license (which is quite  
adequately free in my opinion) has been rescinded and replaced by the  
APSL? I think that would be compatible with the SqL clause about  
relicensing so long as it is no less protective of Apple,  since  
after all they have chosen this new license. Surely *any* code  
released under SqL can be declared as relicensed?
> And of course we have to considerer in one hand the VM part and in the
> other hand the Image part.
I think we've pretty much always taken the approach that code offered  
for VM inclusion is SqL and that it becomes community property. I  
believe that anyone that offers a community some code for inclusion  
into a community project is implicity donating that code in its  
entirety. If they're not.. well they can just bugger off.

I truly can't understand this constant complaint about licensing. At  
one level it's a particularly obnoxious form of pseudo-intellectual  
masturbation since most of the complainers are not even faintly  
qualified to offer real opinions and at another level it's pretty  
much completely irrelevant. These so-called 'free licenses' are  
legally untested, rarely take any consideration of differing national  
boundaries and legal systems and generally smack of smackhead  
barrackroom lawyering. Five sizable companies I could name have had  
no problem with using Squeak under the baleful glare of the SqL.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
There's a guy works down the fish shop swears he's elvish...