Hi Andreas,

"Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Göran,
> 
> > Again, and I am getting somewhat tired to repeat this: I am 
> > not talking about the Right or Wrong of the two licenses
> > involved here. I am talking about the very fact that we
> > have TWO licenses currently.
> 
> Okay, fine. So you talk about the fact. But what's your problem with it? It
> seems to me that you haven't made it quite clear as to what your concerns
> are. (of course, I am assuming that you _do_ have a problem with it or else
> I think you wouldn't talk about it in such length; if you are merely
> rambling please let me know ;-)

Phew. I thought I was being very clear. I have said that I don't think
it is a good idea to get a proliferation of licenses within what I like
to call "Squeak".

> > So to be correct we need to change www.squeak.org - AFAIK it 
> > doesn't say anything about the Unix VM being under a different
> > license, etc.
> 
> Please, what are you talking about? If you receive Squeak and, by doing so,
> receive Ian's VM you are bound by SqueakL. If you wish to hack Ian's source
> files (which represents a particular implementation of that VM) you are in
> addition required to rename those files you hacked. I _really_ don't get
> what you are saying here.

You are just trying to get this to sound "silly" of me. I stand firm by
the fact that by downloading Squeak for Unix I am bound by TWO different
licenses depending on what I like to do with it. Note that I really
think the clause about turning the stuff into GPL if not used "in the
context of Squeak" to be much more interesting to mention here, than the
clause about renaming files.

> > Ok, now we are getting somewhere. So in fact you think we 
> > should have a different license for the VM ports/support code?
> 
> Err ... actually no ;-) I just went over exhibit A again and my memory about
> the exact phrasing was slightly off.

Eh, well - dead end there then.

> > To me "Squeak" has always meant the image AND the available VM ports.
> 
> Sure. Noone said differently.

Eh... you sure have a way of twisting and turning when discussing with
me. ;-) What did you then mean with the word _in_ here:

> My understanding is that Andrews concerns were about mixing licenses _in_ Squeak.


> > But... :-) I am not talking about the merits of SqueakL etc.
> > I am talking about the fact that we have a different license for 
> > the Unix VM port. Thus we have two licenses for "Squeak". See the
> > above questions and continue from there.
> 
> I just don't understand your concerns/problems/whatever it is. SqueakL
> requires you to make modifications, ports etc. available, but it does not
> make any claims on whether there may be any additional restrictions or
> responsibilities (except from being "no less restrictive" of Apple for
> "modified software"). Ian is executing his rights _within_ SqueakL and I
> don't see how you can say that there are "two licenses" given that the
> restrictions are (practically speaking) irrelevant. You really need to
> explain what your problems are before we can go any further here.

Ok, then. Just to make things abundantly clear to you. If you say it is
just *fine* to add clauses as long as the new license doesn't break
SqueakL then why don't we simply say to every contributor in this
community that it doesn't matter what kind of clauses they add to their
contributions?

Up til now we have been very clear that we only let SqueakL stuff into
the base image. Then we should just dump that idea. Perhaps the official
"addon" packages can even be whichever license people like! As long as
they are additional code built on top they don't need to be under
SqueakL, right?

Personally I think it would be a disaster if we had no
guideline/community rule at all in this respect - again exactly what
Andrew warned about. And I think the "Squeak official ports" are just as
much "Squeak" as the base image, and you agreed with me on that.

But since I haven't been able to even raise one single little concern
with you Andreas I don't think there is any point for me to continue
this thread. You don't see any problem whatsoever with contributors
adding clauses. I do. We are obviously just stuck here. Now I am waiting
for someone else to chime in or I am dropping it, it is just a waste of
time.

> Cheers,
>   - Andreas

regards, Göran

PS. I should be doing SM2 and you should be... releaseing Croquet
perhaps? :-)