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