Robert Withers <rwithers12 at attbi.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 03:02 AM, Robert Withers wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 02:54 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> >>> [license]  I must be able to release under the SqueakL
> >>
> >> WHY??? Due to an unfortunate technicality, SqueakL is not 
> >> open-source. I
> >> STRONGLY recommend using an open source license that's 
> >> link-compatible with
> >> both SqueakL and Mozilla. PLEASE.
> 
> Mark,  what's wrong with the SqueakL?
> 
> thanks,
> rob

I haven't followed your discussion but I assume Robert is authoring a
reusable software in Squeak and wants to use SqueakL so that his stuff
will be available for typical Squeak usage like optional inclusion in
"base line" Squeak (would still be a package but that is another story)
or for use in other projects using Squeak.

In any case I assume Robert meant "I want to use a license as free as
SqueakL".

Mark points out that SqueakL does not technically qualify as OpenSource
(tm) and urge Robert to choose another license.

My advice is to simply duallicense under SqueakL and MIT. That would
keep everyone happy except for Richard Stallman, but GPL isn't a
practical option in Squeak land anyway. MIT is AFAIK mixable with
anything since it practially doesn't contain any restrictions at all.

Of course if any of the restrictions in SqueakL is something Robert
explicitly wants for his software then this suggestions is of course
moot.

regards, Göran