On Jun 30, 2006, at 5:47 AM, Lex Spoon wrote:

> stéphane ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> writes:
>> The main problem is who would do that? Since we are not even able to
>> harvest fixes.
>> Now what we can do is to perform an audit of the assets we have and
>> their status:
>>
>> - NewCompiler (nearly there and could be APSL/MIT/Squeak-L)
>> - Tweak ?
>> - OmniBrowser
>> - MC
>> - YAXO
>>
>> I have the impression that we cannot restart from scratch without a
>> clear analysis of the current
>> status.
>
>
> There is a lot of existing Squeak content.  There are 200 packages in
> the 3.7 stable package universe.  It takes hours just to *read* this
> list.  Imagine how long it would take to reproduce it all.

Whoa. So far this is the first suggestion I've seen that we should  
worry about the licensing of anything other than the core image. The  
goal here is to be able to say that "Squeak is Open Source (tm)" and  
be able to have it included in OS distributions, or pitch it to  
customers on that basis. That code doesn't require that every bit of  
code in the Squeak universe comply. The packages on SM can be  
licensed however the authors choose, and it's up to them to manage  
the consequences of their choices.

I think Steph brought up those packages because they are or have been  
included in the core Squeak distribution at one time or another.  
They're also big chunks of code with few contributors and should thus  
be fairly easy to get relicensed.

Colin