On 21/03/2008, Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek at eranova.si> wrote:
> Well, Swazoo license is still not seriously defined IMO

Huh?  The issue has come up a number of times on cls (first in 2000)
and the conclusion that Swazoo is under the LGPL was questioned but
never challenged.  The SourceForge project makes it clear that Swazoo
is under the LGPL.

This is the first time I have heard anyone explicitly claim otherwise.
 On previous ocations, Janko, you have said effectively "Oh, is it?  I
didn't know".  This is the first time I have seen you or anyone
seriously assert that Swazoo is not 100% LGPL.

You can't change the license by just announcing that you have.

If you manage to persuade the people who contributed to Swazoo to
switch the license, then fair enough.  Until then, Swazoo is 100%
under the LGPL, no ifs no buts no doubt.

For now the pertinent question is:  Who will fix the erroneous listing
that shows Swazoo is under MIT in Squeak?  People would be quite
rightly upset if they have picked up something on the basis it is
available under one licence when it fact it is under another.

-- 
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/