Bruce Badger wrote:

>> No I didn't, but I also don't remember that we seriously set up a
>>  license for Swazoo. Those chooses were more chooses by license
>>  popularity than anything else. As it was (and still mostly is) in
>>  Smalltalk world.
> 
> As Paolo suggests, licensing isn't something can be changed without
> the OK from all contributors.  All the discussions on cls are clear
> that Swazoo is under the LGPL.  Have a look for yourself.  Use Google
> to search for "Swazoo license" in the comp.lang.smalltalk group. I
> recall the issue ever coming up on the Swazoo mailing list.
> 
> We just need to change the entries that appear in the Squeak
> repositories so that the actual license is clear to any potential
> users of Swazoo.
> 
> I guess apologies may be due to people who have adopted Swazoo under
> the mistaken impression that it is licensed under MIT :-/

Well, Swazoo license is still not seriously defined IMO and it it a time 
to do that. So, because of lack of "Smalltalk" license and from recent 
relicensing efforts, we have obviously two choices: MIT and LGPL. Now, 
if I understand correctly the current view on licenses in Smalltalk 
community (very simplified):

	MIT code can be used in (L)GPL code
	LGPL code cannot be used in MIT code

 From above equations it is obvious that MIT code is a way to go. And as 
far as I know it is just you Bruce, who explicitly contribute a LGPL 
code. For good of all Smalltalk community I would therefore kindly ask 
you if you consider changing license for it to MIT.

Best regards
JAnko


-- 
Janko Mivšek
AIDA/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si