[squeak-dev] Re: On the swazoo list
bonzini at gnu.org
Mon Mar 24 19:50:59 UTC 2008
>> > So from his description it sounds like an attempt
>> > at forcing the software into LGPL simply by "injecting" your own LGPL
>> > code into it. Which would, of course, be every bit as reprehensible
>> > as the "software mugging" you describe.
>> If you look at the version history of Swazoo in the Cincom public
>> Store and at the archive of the Swazoo mailing list you'll see that I
>> wasn't just injecting a bit of code here and there :-)
> In the theoretical situation I described, the amount of code wouldn't
> matter. It would be someone contributing a bunch of code under a
> different license and trying to do a "hostile take-over".
You assume that everyone is satisfied with MIT, and that "injecting"
everything but MIT is considered hostile (oversimplifying -- I grant you
But some people might disagree with that, especially if they have
contributed time to a project and would like to get back improvements to
that project (but not code *using* it). MIT does not give you that, and
I can see why Bruce would like his Swazoo code to stay under the license
he thought Swazoo was being released under.
I don't think I'll have anything else to say on this issue. Let's
remember it of an example of how *not* to deal with licensing; probably
something worse than having to live with a license you don't like.
More information about the Squeak-dev