bvukmer at blackboard.com
Tue Apr 15 10:52:21 CEST 2003
Hmm.. What Daniel did was not what I intended -- I meant for people to just put their name under one license.
I realize there are a whole bunch of issues here, including sub-licensing. It just seemed like it would be helpful to get a sense from the community of what kind of license would be preferred..
Goran, I'd be happy to help you pull together info to update the license FAQ.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: goran.hultgren at bluefish.se [mailto:goran.hultgren at bluefish.se]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 7:19 PM
> To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
> Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]License Poll
> "Brent Vukmer" <bvukmer at blackboard.com> wrote:
> > http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/100
> First of all I don't understand this page at all. What are
> the numbers?
> Perhaps Daniel misunderstood it, I don't know.
> Furthermore, this page below that Brent just made
> unfortunately makes it
> sound much simpler than it is.
> It doesn't really matter if we get Apple to change their
> license. Apple
> only owns a small part (I have heard the number 20% - accuracy unknown
> but you get the point) of current Squeak and they can not change the
> license for the rest. And who owns the major part of the rest? Have a
> guess. And do we really want to knock on that door? Personally I would
> say no.
> I would be much more interested in investigating sublicensing staying
> within Squeak-L.
> regards, Göran
> PS. I also have an old thread with a license FAQ draft I once wrote
> collecting dust. Should polish it up and complement it with the facts
> that we have learned this time around - there were a few eyeopeners -
> like for example the simple fact I outlined above. And then we should
> put this on minnow IMHO. Brent, if you are interested - could you help
> me out sorting through it all?
More information about the Squeakfoundation