ask for APSL? for real this time?
Andrew C. Greenberg
werdna at mucow.com
Thu Jan 8 04:21:46 UTC 2004
It certainly *IS* legally dubious, to wit: if the licensor does not
have the right to license the underlying work under BOTH licenses.
That is the problem. If we had the right to dual license our code
without violation of Squeak-L, then we could simply license it under
MIT as well.
On Jan 7, 2004, at 7:26 PM, Cees de Groot wrote:
> Lothar Schenk <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org> said:
>> 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 don't think you understand dual licensing. If I release code under
> SqueakL+MIT, it means that the licensee can choose under what terms
> he/she wants to use my code (or, of course, choose that neither license
> is appropriate and not use my code). That is very clear, very common,
> and very appropriate behavior in this case. There is nothing legally
> dubious about it.
>
> --
> Cees de Groot http://www.tric.nl <cg at tric.nl>
> tric, the new way helpdesk/ticketing software, VoIP/CTI,
> web applications, custom development
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2361 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20040107/3b07bdf3/smime.bin
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|