ask for APSL? for real this time?

Lothar Schenk lothar.schenk at
Wed Jan 7 16:59:42 UTC 2004

Cees de Groot wrote:

> However, I *do* agree, empathically, with for example Goran's strong
> suggestion to dual-license works under SqueakL+MIT.

I think dual-licensing of original new contributions will create still more of 
a mess than we have now, because more code will be released under legally 
dubious terms. I think the only clean way of releasing original new code (not 
modifications of existing code) to be open source would be to release them 
under a non-Squeak-L license, which might be MIT, if authors don't care about 
independent commercial use by others.

Moreover, I think that re-releasing modifications of existing code that is 
already under Squeak-L with a dual license, Squeak-L and MIT, might not work 
legally, because I think this would be considered to be sublicensing from the 
Squeak-L point of view, and if I understand this correctly, the Squeak-L 
terms do not allow sublicenses to be less restrictive than the original 
Squeak-L license (at least as regards Apple's rights and Apple's rights is 
all the Squeak-L is about, anyway).


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list