goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> I don't agree. The current discussion is more like the DFSG in Debian
> (Debian Free Software Guideline). We aren't talking about Squeak
> packages in general - those can be under whichever license they like -
> see SM.

Ah. Brilliant. That's exactly right. I propose the rule should be -
stuff in Official Squeak has to be DFSG compliant. We'll consider
Packages broken out of the image and that we can't unilaterally license
as something DFSG to be exceptions. As exceptions, we'll take care of
documenting them, and when possible, either fix or replace them.

> We are talking about "Squeak official". Our common ground. The artefact
> that we maintain together. I would say it is very natural to keep that
> under ONE license - all other similar projects I have seen do the same.
Why? See Debian. Maybe the Core should be under one license. But since
it seems to be all exception right now, I'd prefer to apply the same
rule as above.

Daniel