ask for APSL? for real this time?

goran.krampe at bluefish.se goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Thu Jan 8 08:09:58 UTC 2004


"Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> 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.

It is NOT "the problem" for NEW code.

Please separate the issues here - either you create a modified work
based on code under Squeak-L and then of course you must abide to the
rules of Squeak-L - dual licensing under MIT is then not possible. Dual
licensing under a different license would be possible though, but
probably not overly useful.

But if you create an original work of your own - like say brand new
classes for displaying SVG or something - then of course you can dual
license it and I *still* would like to hear what would be "legally
dubious" with that.

regards, Göran



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list