ask for APSL? for real this time?

goran.krampe at goran.krampe at
Wed Jan 7 21:58:30 UTC 2004


Lothar Schenk <lothar.schenk at> wrote:
> 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 definitely do NOT agree.

> 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.

I can *definitely not* see why that would be "cleaner". Please enlighten
me on why you think so.

The only thing I can remotely think of is that it might be "legally
confusing" to release code written by say me - under a license that
explicitly mentions Apple etc. So to be really "proper" I should
probably better use a "copy" of Squeak-L with such named entities
removed etc.

Andrew might have some insight into that subtle issue.

> 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).

This seems true though - but I don't think anyone has ever argued that
modifications can be released under MIT - modified works of Squeak-L
code must of course abide by the Squeak-L rules about modified works.

> Lothar

regards, Göran

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list