On 6/26/06, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
> Further, if Apple have decided that some license is good
> enough for their purpose to replace the SqL then it seems that they
> consider this new license 'no less protective'.
>
Sorry, but I can't go with you there. Why would that be? In SqueakL,
Apple said that the general public (the licensee in a, well, general
public license) is not allowed to re-license Squeak under anything
that's less protective. Apple, however, is the licensor, not the
general public. They can do whatever they want. They could have sold
Squeak 1.1 lock, stock and barrel to Microsoft for mucho North
American Pesos (in fact, they still can).

Instead, they opted to put Squeak out under another license - which
happens to be less protective of Apple's rights, but this is a
completely parallel process from everything that happened with/under
SqueakL.

Disney, HP, Cees de Groot, and lots of others licensed their code
under SqueakL. Even that is probably not 100% sure because we haven't
really tracked copyrights and licenses for a long time, but in good
faith we can say that whoever worked in the Squeak community and saw
their code being incorporated, implicitely licensed their
contributions under SqueakL (there's a reason the FSF insists on
paperwork being done before you can contribute, you see...).

But to say, in good faith, that all these parties now implicitely
would accept a switch to APSL just because the original contributor
dual-licensed Squeak 1.1... I don't think that'll hold up.