whoops, now the dogs are out :)
Andrew C. Greenberg
werdna at mucow.com
Fri Jan 24 15:41:18 UTC 2003
Indeed, dual licensing can be complicated and unnecessary -- but it is
a useful technique to resolve political situations. It is how the
Perl/FSF dispute was resolved, and it is a useful resolution for
software that is already singly-licensed, such as was done with the
MPeg3 plugin. In short, a straight public license is certainly
adequate, but a dual license may be necessary in some circumstances.
Dual-licensing is not an option for derivative software made from
Squeak, which code is subject to Squeak-L in most cases, but only for
entirely original code.
For original code, suggest using Squeak-L, or freer (as in BPL/MIT, not
GPL). Anything else is a recipe for failure, and risks a great project
rotting on the vine for license conflicts later on.
On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 07:34 AM, Noury Bouraqadi wrote:
> goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
>> 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.
> What is MIT?
> Does it make sens to have two different licences for the same uses of
> the same software? I mean licences can be conflicting. So how to avoid
> conflicts and how to know when one is "active" or not?
More information about the Squeak-dev