Of course, while we're thanking people for clearing up licensing issues
with their software, allowing us to benefit from it, we might consider
improving the situation with our own stuff. SqueakL is not a license
that there's any reason for anyone to accept if they're not working in
Squeak. 

If more of us can dual license their packages* with something more
widely usable, like the MIT license, that would be a nice way to give
stuff back to the wider community.

Daniel
* I'm thinking of Monticello, Comanche, Jabber...

"David T. Lewis" <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 09:25:54AM -0500, Brent Vukmer wrote:
> > Exciting stuff, Marcus.  Thanks for getting this in motion!
> > 
> > And thanks, John Brant and Don Roberts for MIT-licensing SmaCC!
> 
> Yes indeed, thanks very much. I have something I did in lex/yacc
> years ago that I've never gotten around to re-doing in Squeak.
> I'm looking forward to trying it with SmaCC now.
> 
> Thank you John and Don.
> 
> Dave