On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:23:51 +0100 
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:

> Serge Stinckwich <Serge.Stinckwich at info.unicaen.fr> wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > > My personal recommendation is MIT dual licensed with SqueakL but that
> > > would of course completely erase any GNUish mechanisms.
> > 
> > I like your idea of dual licensed mechanism, do you have any more concrete wording of this kind of combination ?
> > I think it could be of great benefits for all the developpers who want to release code for Squeak and don't want to
> > be bothered by licensing issues. Like you, i didn't like SqueakL too much
> 
> Actually it is exactly as simple as it sounds. You simply release the
> code under both those licenses. It is a quite common practice. As the
> author you have the full right give the software under license A to
> customer X and under license B to customer y. TrollTech was one of the
> more known examples of this when they duallicensed Qt under GPL for the
> FSF community and under a proprietary license to their paying customers.
> Everybody happy.
> 
> So you don't "combine" the licenses - instead you just say:
> 
> This code is available under the SqueakL or under the MIT license. Pick
> any you like. (And of course you need to include the license in
> question. Don't forget to add your name and year to the MIT template).

It means i need to put the two licences inside the changeset ?
or have two changesets one with SqueakL, one with MIT License ?

> Again personally I like the MIT minimalistic license. At least for my
> work in the Squeak community. A more "free" license than that is more or
> less impossible. Sure, someone can use that code to make money etc, but
> so what? Go ahead! This is IMHO one of the strenghts with Squeak etc. -
> that I can embed it in a proprietary product if I want to. Otherwise I
> wouldn't be as interested in it.
> 
> > > Note: There are multiple issues at hand like "Do we want multiple
> > > licenses in base Squeak?" "Answer: No!" and "Are we talking about
> > > distribution as image or as sourcecode?". Personally I am not sure what
> > > happens if a package in sourceform is distributed "on the side" together
> > > with an image.
> > 
> > Yes, multiple licenses enhance confusion, but if we have only two choices : SqueakL and SqueakL + MIT license, 
> > for people that don't like SqueakL, it could be nice !
> 
> Yes. But there is nothing that needs to be done for you to use this
> today. The rule is simple:
> 
> For anything you want to enter the "Squeak base" - put it under SqueakL
> and then add as many other licenses as you see fit. :-)
> 
> regards, Göran
> 
> PS. Perhaps we should add MIT to the licenses to choose from at SM. Note
> that you can select multiple licenses - just use the select box further
> down to add more categories.

Please do.


-- 
Serge Stinckwich                                         -< )  multiagent.com
Université de Caen>CNRS UMR 6072>GREYC>MAD                /~\  squeak.org
http://www.iutc3.unicaen.fr/serge/                       (/  | zope.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] _|_/  debian.org