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

[Bert Freudenberg]

Ian Piumarta wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Marcus Denker wrote:
> 
> 
>>The Question is: Can the RB-AST *replace* the Node-classes in the
>>image, if it is MIT-Licensed?
> 
> 
> As I understand it, the MIT license says: "Do absolutely anything you want
> with this code, except claim copyright ownership on it".
> 
> Most importantly, MIT is not "infectious" in the way that the GPL is.
> You can include all, or any part, of any MIT-licensed code in anything you
> like, provided you keep the boilerplate intact on that code (a class
> comment would do) in any source distribution you choose to make.  I cannot
> see any incompatibility with SqueakL there at all.  The effects of the MIT
> license do not "leak" out of any of the code you reuse, and whatever
> effect the SqueakL might have on the MIT-licensed code is completely moot,
> since the MIT license explicitly gives you permission to do *anything* at
> all (including relicensing it) -- provided only that the original
> boilerplate remains in the MIT-derived code.
> 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.  :)
> 
> Regards,
> Ian
> 
> PS: Witness the kerberos code in the Linux kernel, which is MIT-licensed
>     and then relicensed (implicitly) as GPL (merely by being linked with
>     other parts of the Linux kernel).  Other parts of Linux (device
>     drivers, in particular) do the same with (lots of) BSD-licensed code.

I like that example, and indeed it corresponds exactly to what I had in 
mind. It very much simplifies the discussions if we can say that 
everything in the Squeak image is available under SqueakL, although 
certain parts might be available under different licences elsewhere, too.

-- 
    Bert