[Squeakfoundation] re: Allow MIT-licensed code to be partof"SqueakOfficial"?

Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de
Mon Nov 17 09:14:36 CET 2003


Am 17.11.2003 um 00:55 schrieb Andreas Raab:

>>> ...if someone "extracts" something back out of Squeak he [should] be
>>> bound by SqueakL. Otherwise, I guess there would be... a mess.
>>
>> 	If we want that, it seems to me we can only accept exclusively
>> SqueakL-licensed code.
>
> Not necessarily. There is SM after all. If a package is at SM under 
> some
> license you can get it from there under the license you want. This 
> would
> simplify the in-image situation slightly. E.g., a simple bottom line 
> might
> be that whatever gets shipped with the Squeak image comes under 
> Squeak-L. If
> you don't like that, go to SM and see if there's another license, and 
> if so,
> download and install on your own.
>
> For dual-licensed packages this would be trivial. For those which 
> aren't we
> can still sublicense the package under Squeak-L if the original license
> allows it.
>

But SM is not an option for the case that startet the discussion: You
can't load the compiler (AST and SmaCC-runtime) from SM.

The Question is: Can the RB-AST *replace* the Node-classes in the
image, if it is MIT-Licensed?

    Marcus

--
Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de



More information about the Squeakfoundation mailing list