[squeak-dev] The future of Squeak & Pharo

Douglas Brebner squeaklists at fang.demon.co.uk
Mon Jun 29 05:06:47 UTC 2009


Miguel Cobá wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Douglas
> Brebner<squeaklists at fang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>   
>> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>     
>>>>>>>> "Miguel" == Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <miguel.coba at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>> Miguel> I don't know of any organization backing with lawyers the
>>> Miguel> FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD (MIT/BSD license) effort and of course that has
>>> Miguel> not avoid using this OSes in real organizations and for mission
>>> Miguel> critical operations.
>>>
>>> The licenses of those projects has not changed, ever.
>>>
>>> Squeak has a very different situation, taking a product from private to
>>> semi-public to public source, with a lot of contributors putting code in
>>> during the "grey area" times.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Actually, wasn't NetBSD bitten by the USL v BSDI & University of
>> California lawsuit which was over licencing of the commercial Unix code
>> that the early BSD code was based on?
>>  I'm pretty sure I remember them not being able to make their CVS repo
>> public in the early days because it contained commercially licenced code
>> from the original Unix.
>>
>>
>>     
>
> But what about being more practical and take the Linux approach: use
> the code and,
> when and if ever, threatened or suited, remove the affected code and
> rewriting it in order
> to not infringe copyrights/patents.
>
>   
That's pretty much what they did except...
Firstly, it was almost *all* of the code potentially at risk (it was the
code they got from the university that was at issue).
Secondly, removing the tainted files required manual surgery to their
CVS repository.




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list