Indeed.
The problem is not really the possibility or risk of fundamental flaw in the license, but an ideological opposition to things not GPL or conforming to certain notions of "free." While I am sympathetic to many of those positions, the proposition a lawyer should be engaged perform a "risk analysis" for prospective users, as though there actually were such a thing, by any person other than the prospective user, is silly.
It appears that there is no ambiguity as to the meaning of Squeak-L, it pretty much means what it says. The dispute seems, rather to be whether it should say what it says. It is what it is, and pretty much has to be unless and until we rebuild it from the bottom up or get it relicensed all of its contributors. The longer we wait, the harder that will be for everyone.
Or maybe the lack of commitment to such a project indicates there really isn't that much need to change it?
On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:38 AM, Cees De Groot wrote:
On 12/21/05, Nevin Pratt nevin@bountifulbaby.com wrote:
I personally think the Squeak License is "good enough". However, obviously others disagree.
The funny thing is, as Tim pointed out, that company lawyers do not seem to be among those that disagree. Only people who prefix their loudly voiced opinions with IANAL....
So I don´t think you´ll get very rich from this proposed business :)