Squeak license situation

Karl karl.ramberg at comhem.se
Thu Nov 22 07:06:24 UTC 2007

Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2007, at 3:55 , tim Rowledge wrote:
>> Oh, and I *think* that strictly speaking we're not in the business of 
>> relicensing the system as MIT; Apple relicensed the 1.1 release under 
>> the Apache 2.0 license and we are trying to get everything added 
>> subsequently to be under MIT. So far as I can work out that means the 
>> *system* as a whole will be legally Apache 2.0 but I am not a lawyer 
>> and I don't even play one on TV.
> Indeed - the board is trying to get clarification on this from VPRI's 
> lawyers.
> What we can say for sure is the history of events to date:
> ==========
> On 23 September 1996, Apple Computer Inc. released Squeak V1.1 under 
> the "Squeak License" (SqL).
> On May 8, 2006 Apple agreed to relicense original Squeak Code under 
> the "Apple Public Source License 2.0" (APSL 2.0).
> On October 12, 2006 Apple granted permission to relicense under Apache 
> 2.0.
> In 2006, VPRI began to collect "Distribution Agreements" for all 
> contributors to Squeak since V1.1 up to V3.8, asking them to relicense 
> their contributions, which were originally licensed under SqL, to the 
> MIT license. This was a great effort on behalf of many and VPRI has 
> 100s of signed documents agreeing to this.
> ==========
> This, I think, should be mentioned on 
> http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ which is somewhat fuzzy. 
I made some changes to the license page. It's still fuzzy but the whole 
license situation is a little fuzzy :-)


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list