The Squeak License seems to be an old one from the Apple days.

I found the MIT license at
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php<http://www.opensource.org/>

Is this the one you are talking about?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The MIT License

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to
deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS
IN THE SOFTWARE.
==============================================

So it seems to me that this license means that anyone P can do
whatever they want with The Software as long as the permission notice is
included in the derivative work which would then give anybody else P1 the
same rights in the derivative work?  To do whatever they P1 want with the
derivative work?

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Kjell Godo <squeaklist at gmail.com> wrote:

> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH - ! ! !
>
> If you praise me I will fly through the ceiling and break my neck.
> If you pan me I will sweat and my palms will tingle.
> It's better if I don't read your replys.
> But that gets me nowhere.
>
> Now Where is this new Squeak License.
>
> Or as he said in Screamers: What Other Type?
>
>
>
>
> On 3/27/08, Michael van der Gulik <mikevdg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:05:03 -0700
> > "Kjell Godo" <squeaklist at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > ( Some resistances come to mind.
> > > Perhaps it's not up to the generally accepted practice of including
> > > practically zero
> > > documentation? And could not be included for that reason? The change
> log
> > > is
> > > too big. There are long rants in there. poetics. nonsense. the
> > included
> > > text
> > > looks like some Mandelbrot set? With too many usage examples and ideas
> > > written into the comments? )
> >
> >
> > I see our resident poet is back :-).
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?q=picoverse+squeak
> >
> > Gulik.
> >
> > --
> > Michael van der Gulik <mikevdg at gmail.com>
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20080328/dff24bf3/attachment.htm