That sounds like a very good approach to this. Wheras I find having to  
get licensing on a trivial change to be anal, I think getting approval  
of an 'anal' group is probably a good plan - unfortunately, as of may  
be the best course for the future of Squeak.

David



On 9-Feb-09, at 14:53, Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com> wrote:

> Let me state my concerns another way as it seems I'm not being clear.
>
> My concern is for the unknown person or entity some years from now who
> is considering adopting Squeak and sees something about the license
> history and has to have some basis for justifying that they have no
> reasonable fear of legal repercussions.
>
> It seems to me that whatever we decide we have to clearly fully  
> document
> this for years to come.
>
> To make this more concrete it seems to me that the very first customer
> we have to please is the Software Freedom Law Center.  Do they not  
> have
> some sort of formal policy on this?  If not, shouldn't they want to  
> work
> with us to develop one?  This seems like a fundamental starting  
> point at
> the very least.
>
> Ken
>