On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 07:27 AM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se 
wrote:

> 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
>

Hi Göran!

> 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.

Yes, that's exactly right.

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

I want to release specifically under the SqueakL, if I have too, in 
order to provide a alternative "base line".  I am under the impression 
that I need to be SqueakL to have any chance of an alternate baseline.

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

I am not sure if this is the issue or not.  Perhaps I should have found 
out, before forking the thread so abruptly.  Excuse me for doing that, 
Mark.

I suspect that it is not a Fonts issue but rather section 6 issue.  
Export Law Assurances.  That's the one I have a concern about, anyway.  
At work, our lawyers hve approved our use of squeak in our product 
(although we were mainly interested in reusing code).  I think this 
says a lot about the SqueakL, because they rejected the openssh license.

So this would imply that SqueakL is protective of squeak's openness, 
and makes it perfectly suitable for business use, but is not protective 
enough for the Open-Source community.  the part that gets me is that 
you have every last bit of every piece of source code available, so 
Open-Source really isn't about open-source.  There are other legalities 
involved.

>
> 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.

If it isn't a problem to dual license like this, then I'm game.  I just 
don't want to have to start sprinkling license statements everywhere.  
i have managed to avoid using any comments anywhere, so far, ...  ;-)

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

Um, not really, but I am a little concerned with 6 since I am using 
crypto

cheers,
rob