[squeak-dev] Re: Swazoo - LGPL or MIT?

Bruce Badger bwbadger at gmail.com
Mon Mar 24 09:56:29 UTC 2008

On 24/03/2008, Taun Chapman <taun at charcoalia.net> wrote:
> As an ignorant lurker, this has been a quite amazing 49 posts thread. Almost nothing relevant to the original issue.

Well, as the person who started the thread, perhaps I can help :-)

The thread was started because I just saw for the first time that
Swazoo was listed in Squeak Source under MIT when it should be
correctly shown under the LGPL.  If I had seen this sooner, I would
have posted sooner.

>From my point of view the immediate goal is to avoid anyone else being
led to believe that Swazoo is licensed under anything other than the

I doubt that we would be seeing the heat in this discussion if Swazoo
had been correctly listed in the first place.

>  In addition there is the question of why Bruce Badger is so against Swazoo having the MIT license?

Well, before this thread, nobody asked.  If you want to start a thread
proposing that and arguing in favor of that then I will contribute to
that thread.  This thread is about correcting an error which has
clearly misled people.  BTW, such a thread should be started on cls
since Hyper and even the older Swazoo HTTP code are used across many

>  Everyone except Bruce is saying "use only MIT" or "make the license clear and consistent" but no one is suggesting how to do so other than Bruce who is saying "Swazoo is GPL, end of story." None of this seems very constructive.

No, I'm saying that Swazoo was under the LGPL start of story, and the
story has not changed.  We just need to get the story straight in
Squeak Source.

Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list