ask for APSL? for real this time?
lothar.schenk at gmx.de
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