| Newsgroups |
gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.foundation |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
"Andreas Raab" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Göran,
>
> > And again, living in "fear" is not something I want to do. :-)
>
> The paranoid will always live in fear. You know, there's really nothing you
> can do to prevent someone *trying* to revoke a license. Whether that's
> successful is quite a different matter (though it may hurt the standing of
> all involved). But please, don't delude yourself that you "won't be living
> in fear" if you're paranoid enough right now ;-)
I know that. What I meant is that I think it is better to approach Apple
and straighten this out once and for all. This way I would know that we
have a license that Apple approves of and that may also turn out
slightly better than the one we have now. Of course, they can change
their minds in the future after that, but that would be much less
likely.
The alternative, which Ted implies - is that the Lion is sleeping and we
shouldn't disturb it because the Lion may be in a bad mood. *If* Ted is
right about the "mood" part - which information from Cees contradicts -
then I would like a confrontation now, instead of putting more time into
Squeak and "live in fear" of the Lion awakening.
More clear what I meant?
> Cheers,
> - Andreas
regards, Göran
PS. Again, I would like also to know why we really *need* to approach
Apple at all - if we could solve this by sublicensing. Andrew hinted
that it would be better to talk with Apple first, but I never got an
acknowledgement on that.
From [email protected] Wed Apr 02 12:44:13 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 3147 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 12:44:13 -0000
Received: from mail.gmx.net (213.165.65.60)
by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 12:44:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 31489 invoked by uid 65534); 2 Apr 2003 12:44:13 -0000
Received: from gruenderlabor.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (EHLO atlantis) (141.44.23.5)
by mail.gmx.net (mp009-rz3) with SMTP; 02 Apr 2003 14:44:13 +0200
From: "Andreas Raab" <[email protected]>
To: "'Discussing the Squeak Foundation'"
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:44:09 +0200
Message-ID: <000801c2f915$8e46cfb0$1f00a8c0@atlantis>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Importance: Normal
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
<squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 12:44:14 -0000
G=F6ran,
> I know that. What I meant is that I think it is better to=20
> approach Apple and straighten this out once and for all.
The "once and for all" part is exactly where you are wrong. Even if =
Apple
would change the license there is absolutely nothing you can do to =
prevent
them from *trying* to revoke it a couple of years down the road. Don't =
you
think that Squeak-L was considered a "once and for all" solution at the =
time
it was written?
> This way I would know that we have a license that Apple
> approves of
Excuse me but Apple _has_ approved of the current license - they made =
it!
> and that may also turn out slightly better than the one
> we have now. Of course, they can change their minds in
> the future after that, but that would be much less
> likely.
And on what exactly do you base your opinion here? Squeak-L was made for =
all
the purposes you are mentioning, done by Apple. Now, a couple of years
later, you state some concerns which are based on no facts whatsoever. =
So if
we take this a couple of years down the road then someone else might =
have
very similarly unfounded objections. This is just paranoid.
> The alternative, which Ted implies - is that the Lion is=20
> sleeping and we shouldn't disturb it because the Lion may
> be in a bad mood. *If* Ted is right about the "mood" part
> - which information from Cees contradicts - then I would
> like a confrontation now, instead of putting more time into
> Squeak and "live in fear" of the Lion awakening.
Yeah, and play the bull in the china shop. Great idea.
> More clear what I meant?
It is clear what you mean but that doesn't mean I agree with a single =
word
you're saying. It is paranoid no matter how you put it and you seem to =
be
willing to risk an open confrontation out of those (completely =
unjustified)
objections. And if you guys screw this up then the entire community will
have to live with the consequences of your paranoia.
- Andreas