Doug -- the question isn't whether it is reasonable, but rather whether 
there is any part of the code that was possibly derived.  Surely Kent's 
part of SUnit can be licensed however he wants, but the subsequent code 
developed in Squeak is probably licensable only in Squeak-L.  Likewise 
SM and SMPL.

If SmaCC is unchanged from the original code, I agree that a dual 
license is possible.  To the extent there is any Squeak-specific 
modifications, there are two approaches: (1) to single license the 
whole under a conjunctive (not disjunctive) Squeak-L with the 
additional notice or other  provisions of MIT; or (2) to distribute 
SmaCC under MIT, and a separately developed changeset to make it work 
in Squeak under Squeak-L.   (2) is probably the most straightforward 
approach.

On Jan 13, 2004, at 12:22 AM, Doug Way wrote:

>
> On Friday, January 9, 2004, at 07:33 PM, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
>
>>> p.s. We (the Guides) did decide to allow MIT-only licensed code to 
>>> be part of the base Squeak release, if there are no alternatives.  
>>> This was for the SmaCC compiler which is licensed only under MIT, 
>>> and has been added to 3.7alpha (and tracked via SqueakMap).  So we 
>>> have conciously broken the rule for avoiding a "multiply-licensed 
>>> Squeak release" to some extent, but this will likely be the only 
>>> other license allowed in the release.
>>
>> Once again, there is still time to stop and save the project.  I 
>> commend that to you.  In the long haul, it WILL kill Squeak or make 
>> it impossible for us to improve the present licensing issues.  In the 
>> old days when I advised SqC regularly on this, I frequently 
>> negotiated appropriate licensing concessions with most such projects.
>
> Note that the SmaCC compiler is the only part of the current 
> image/release which is not Squeak-L licensed (it is MIT only).  Also, 
> it was developed outside of Squeak.. a VisualWorks project originally, 
> I believe.
>
> Regarding dual-licensed code, it looks like there are only three 
> packages in the base image/release like this at the moment... SUnit, 
> SqueakMap and SMPackageLoader.
>
> SUnit was brought in from an external cross-dialect Smalltalk project, 
> so it seems to be a reasonable example of a dual license.  It was 
> already released under a different license (public domain, it 
> appears), and Squeak-L was added when it was incorporated into Squeak.
>
> SqueakMap & SMPackageLoader were both developed in Squeak, and have 
> the SqueakL+MIT license applied as per the current practice.  If it is 
> truly invalid to claim the additional MIT license on these packages, 
> we could consider abandoning this particular practice... it would be 
> easy enough for the authors to release future versions under Squeak-L 
> only.
>
> With SmaCC it might be more difficult to get the authors to release it 
> under Squeak-L... but because it was developed outside of Squeak, 
> perhaps this is not as big an issue?  Although I can understand the 
> argument for keeping everything in the base image/release as Squeak-L.
>
> - Doug
>
-------------- 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/20040113/770295ed/smime.bin