[Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
danielv at netvision.net.il
Sat Apr 5 16:36:11 CEST 2003
Ugh.. adding more political motivations and limitations to the license?
I'd be happy to drop that clause entirely (though it might not be
practical). But why should we strengthen this limitation?
I'm sure you see that using the license as a weapon puts more legal
pressure on it. Look how much clearer BSD is than GPL.
If someone is a miser, bad karma is punishment enough IMO.
Tim Rowledge <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu> wrote:
> On Friday, April 4, 2003, at 04:25 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
> >> Since they were modifying and extending the system they _had_
> >> to release those changes under the SqueakL just like the rest
> >> of us.
> > Slight correction: Squeak-L is not viral. It does not require you to
> > release
> > modifications under Squeak-L. All it requires is to make the code
> > "publicly
> > available".
> That could actually be a problem in some cases. Say developer X
> releases some system changes as required but insists on the GPL. They
> have been publically released but are effectively unusable within the
> main system. And I suppose that in a sense it would 'block' us from
> implementing the same thing unless one could prove it clean. Ugly.
> Perhaps we need to assert that 'publically available' is interpreted as
> 'usable in the main public image'.
> tim at sumeru.stanford.edu
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the Squeakfoundation