[squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?
janko.mivsek at eranova.si
Fri Mar 21 16:23:19 UTC 2008
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.
Smalltalk Web Application Server
More information about the Squeak-dev