Patrick Mauritz wrote:
> Craig Latta wrote:
>>     Oh, note that APSL2 is "OSI-approved" and "OSD-compliant"[1, 2].
>> One problem solved by using APSL2 (or a sublicense of it) is that we
>> can say that Squeak is "open source" and no one will debate it.
>> Tedious as this 
> wishful thinking - the debate about being open source or not comes up
> around open solaris (cddl, OSI approved) all the time.

While this is true and the APSL is less free than I would prefer (as is
the gpl) or at least too long. It is at least an understood license and
people have an understanding where they stand with regard to it. With
the SqueakL too many people didn't even care to investigate it because
they would have to read it, analyze it and make a determination on their
position on a non-standard license.

So this is a very big win. Even if some people aren't for the APSL, they
understand its rights.

> for some people, only some licenses are "really, really, really open
> source the way $deity intended it to be[tm]" (gpl *cough*)

Ha ha. Yeah right. :)

> at least, reasonable people will be happy enough with that change, I
> guess. so, still good news :-))

Very much so.

And the interesting thing is that it possibly points us to a heretofore
unconsidered image for stripping and building.

There has been a fair amount of discussion of stripping images and some
on which image to operate on. This could be interesting. Says one who
isn't qualified to do. :(

Starting from a 1.6mb image as opposed to a 12mb image on up and then
harvest what we can from from the big images and package them.

Oh well, talk is easy. :)

Jimmie