tim Rowledge a écrit :
> 
> 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 adequately free in my opinion) has been rescinded and replaced by the  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  

That would be great. If we can do that, well we have to do it and 
announce it publicy. Can we without the author agreement?

In case, we need to ask the auhors of each bits of Squeak, can we turn 
it the other way ?
We propose that every code licenced under the SqL will be automaticaly 
relicenced by the community to the APSL2.0 the 31 of August 2006 (random 
date). If some authors do not agree with such relicensing, they will 
have to say so (and prove their are the code owner) before the 31 of 
August 2006, etc, etc.


> 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  

I agree with you but whatever we said the SqL has an (unjustified) 
non-free license label. In the other hand if we can distribute the whole 
Squeak under an acknowledged license by the free software community, 
then we can expect support from this community: which mean a lot of 
publicity around Squeak, more attracted developers and users and a 
growing community (given the Squeak quality it will not be difficult).

Several times it happens to several of us to get trouble to attend free 
software meeting to present Squeak. Of course we can conplain the 
organisators are blind, but it may be easier to see how we can evolove 
to by-pass these kinds of problems.
Also we have this same kind of problem when distributing Squeak based 
software in free software distribution.


> 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.

I agree, but I don't want the discussion to move there. My purpose was 
not to discuss about this aspect.

Hilaire