Bruce,

Bruce Badger wrote:

> On the Swazoo list, from which I have been excluded, Janko is asking
> the question of whether Swazoo should be re licensed under the MIT
> license rather than the LGPL.

Please, come to the reason. You were excluded from the list? By someone 
other? What if you maybe unsubscribed by yourself when you made Hyper 
fork? Please, rather cool down and don't accuse others for deeds you 
did. And as you know it is not your first time.

For others, I'm preparing a history of Swazoo and cooperation with 
Bruce, which not started in 2000 when Swazoo was born, but in 09 2003, 
when Bruce did his fork on Cincom Public Repository, where Swazoo first 
appeared in 03 2002. But more in separate post.

Janko


> 
> Regardless of the outcome of this, the current status is that Swazoo
> is under the LGPL.  Only new versions of Swazoo would be affected by
> any "relicense" and only then if all code contributed by people who
> were not included in the discussion were removed.  So far, the
> discussion does not appear to include any of the other original
> contributors to Swazoo.
> 
> Clearly, as I am excluded from the discussion there can be no question
> of any of my code being subject to any "decisions" on the swazoo list.
>  The same would apply to any other contributor too.  Copyright to the
> rescue.
> 
> You know, I do agree that there needs to be clarity in licensing.
> With Swazoo, I thought we had that, since from day one it has been
> under the LGPL which I thought was a pretty open license (I share
> Paolo's view on that).  But this idea of grabbing other people code
> and claiming that it is licensed as you please is not what I signed up
> for. It looks like some kind of software mugging from where I sit.
> 

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