ask for APSL? for real this time?
lothar.schenk at gmx.de
Thu Jan 8 11:13:27 UTC 2004
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.
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