ask for APSL? for real this time?

Lothar Schenk lothar.schenk at
Thu Jan 8 11:13:27 UTC 2004

Cees de Groot wrote:

> Lothar Schenk  <squeak-dev at> 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.

You may well be right, there. :)

> 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.

The MIT license gives me effectively the same rights as those of the original 
owner, provided I retain the copyright notice and the warranty disclaimer.

What possible reason would I, as a potential licensee, have to choose the more 
restrictive Squeak-L license over the more liberal (and more readily 
understandable) MIT license? 

What possible benefit do you see in a dual license arrangement for non-Apple 


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list