Matthew C. Weigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >Section 2: There is a thorny issue about fonts.
It's not, for two reasons: the fonts are bitmap fonts, and since the Squeak License was written they have been shown not to be protectable under copyright laws in various court cases - so we could just strike the whole passage. For good measure, though, we're working on replacing the Apple fonts. (separating them is hardly an option, Squeak is distributed as a single image file containing the base software including fonts and other necessary artwork). >Section 2: it is somewhat inaccurate to say that this license is an >X11/MIT flavored license when it requires that modifications to >existing methods or the VM be released under the license of Exhibit >A. That's the only exception to an otherwise laissez-faire license (and I think a good one, too). >Section 6: I'm pretty sure that's a no-no, at least under OSD#5. > This is indeed one of the biggest questions. If it's a no-no, I fear we need to go back and negotiate with Apple (we are already doing that in order to have two irons in the fire - getting SqueakL OSD compliant *and* coercing Apple to relicense it under their now-standard open source license, which I - and I'm sure you all - would greatly prefer. However, I don't hold my breath because Apple has no interest at all in Squeak). -- Cees de Groot http://www.cdegroot.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD 1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3