Just wondering how all of this fits in to the work that VisualWorks is doing with Seaside since it is a commercial product, and they have already started...<div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Rob<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Jason Johnson <<a href="mailto:jason.johnson.081@gmail.com">jason.johnson.081@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Lukas Renggli <<a href="mailto:renggli@gmail.com">renggli@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> This is the same for Seaside. All packages in the Seaside 2.9<br>
> repository are MIT licensed, including the Seaside-Swazoo adapters. If<br>
> there is the slightest doubt on one of the packages in there, we have<br>
> to move it somewhere else.<br>
><br>
> Lukas<br>
<br>
Personally I would move it. I know there has been a discussion on<br>
here about what is affected, but afaik not by lawyers. And even they<br>
are lawyers, until this part of the license has a precedence set in<br>
court I think it's still a risk. For example, if Seaside got popular<br>
enough to pop up on the FSF radar, how do we know they wouldn't argue<br>
from another angle that makes Seaside appear in violation.<br>
<br>
It's best to avoid extremists from *either* side. :)<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>