tim at rowledge.org
Tue Jan 15 21:34:53 UTC 2008
On 15-Jan-08, at 1:23 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
> tim Rowledge wrote:
>> On 15-Jan-08, at 12:39 PM, Michael van der Gulik wrote:
>>> Is it possible for Squeak to be considered an "Apache base with
>>> MIT extensions"? The base (Squeak 1.1 ) is obviously Apache
>>> licensed, and if you made a massive changeset of all changes since
>>> then, that changeset would be MIT licensed,
>> Nope, I don't think so. Aside from a number of people with changes
>> in there that haven't yet signed the relicensing paperwork, there
>> are large chunks that (probably) belong to Disney and HP. Bloody
>> lawyers and big corporations...
> HP? Can you point to any code that is in Squeak which you believe is
> owned by HP?
I'm guessing (and only guessing right now) that lawyers would tell us
that any code written by you folks whilst employed by HP belongs to
HP. Do I remember explicitly what that code might include? NFW.
So far we (as in 'the board') are finding this relicensing stuff to
be staggeringly complicated and nitpicky. Every antecedent version of
every method in the image has to be covered. The 'sublicensing' clause
in the original SqL doesn't seem to impress the lawyers at all.
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
granary - old folks home
More information about the Squeak-dev