[ANN] Closure Compiler

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Wed Mar 26 10:52:14 UTC 2003


Göran,

> > I don't think so. I know that various people are already 
> > quite concerned about changes to the current license and
> > in fact I have got an inquiry by someone who is quite likely
> > to feed back into the community if it is "safe"
> > to stick to 3.4 in order to prevent any future licensing issues.
> 
> This I believe is a reference to the community testing the waters for
> moving Squeak-L over to be more MITish. Given that - I don't really
> understand the concern. MIT is more forgiving than Squeak-L. Is there
> anything in Squeak-L that "someone" wants to keep?

No. It was just a general feeling of uneasyness. With talk about so many
licenses it can be quite confusing to understand what the goal of such an
anticipated change would be.

> Perhaps this wasn't a reference to changing Squeak-L. ;-)

It was.

> Exactly. One minor problem though is that people don't generally know
> what it means to put something "under Squeak-L". Actually, I don't
> either. I mean, could I end up in trouble for doing that? Could Apple
> sue me? ;-)

Anyone can sue you. For any reason.

> No, no, no, stop - you are confusing each other! (I am not 
> sure Andreas understood the question) We aren't talking about
> mixing - we are talking about *dual licensing*.

I understood this. I was just trying to point out that while dual licensing
is a quite reasonable thing, mixing licenses is not.

> The idea with the dual licensing "MIT + Squeak-L" category on SM is so
> that everyone is pleased. This means that the package is offered under
> *either* MIT (perfect for most uses like for example porting over to
> Dolphin or whatever) or *Squeak-L* (what we want for 
> including into base Squeak).

BTW, perhaps should be called "MIT or Squeak-L" (rather than "+" as in
"and").

Cheers,
  - Andreas



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list