ask for APSL? for real this time?
lothar.schenk at gmx.de
Thu Jan 8 10:58:13 UTC 2004
> > 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.
Simple. Don't introduce unnecessary complications if you don't have to. The
same reason why superfluous code tends to make software buggier without
The only purpose of Apple's Squeak-L is to protect certain Apple rights in
relation to the original code contributions owned by Apple and any
modifications thereof. It makes no sense to apply it to non-Apple code. If
you own original new code and want it to be free, release it under MIT or
something similar that suits you. Why would you need to involve Apple in it?
More information about the Squeak-dev