[Squeakfoundation] Allow MIT-licensed code to be part of
"Squeak Official"?
goran.krampe at bluefish.se
goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Mon Nov 17 20:35:10 CET 2003
Hi!
Jimmie Houchin <jhouchin at texoma.net> wrote:
> goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> > Jimmie Houchin <jhouchin at texoma.net> wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> >
> >>>Yes, and I agree. MIT should be fine. So I vote for allowing it. But
> >>>only it.
> >>
> >>I think allowing MIT would be great. In fact I would think any standard
> >>as free as SqL or better should be allowed. Why only MIT?
> >
> > Definitely not. If we mix up a lot of licenses we will make it more or
> > less impossible for people to know under what circumstances they can use
> > Squeak.
>
> I don't believe it would lead to a proliferation of licenses.
> I also don't believe there to be very many licenses which qualify by my
> statement of as free or freer than SqL. MIT, BSD, X11 (I think) being
> the only ones I am consciously aware of.
Ok, you wrote "In fact I would think any standard as free as SqL or
better should be allowed" - and I think I can find tons of those. But if
you are talking about MIT/BSD (isn't X11 the same as MIT? Don't have
time to check right now) that is a much, much smaller crowd.
> >>BSD is also a standard well known license that may be more comfortable
> >>to corporate types. MIT is great for individuals and some corporations
> >>might be perfectly happy with MIT but for some BSD is better.
> >
> > I hardly think the difference between those is significant.
>
> Having a no endorsement clause is significant and is very standard in
> business. BSD is every bit as free as MIT, but includes a very minimal
> clause which is very conducive for businesses.
I know that. But I can admit I didn't think it was that important to
people/companies.
Fine (sigh, I can see where this is going...) - then why don't we agree
to let BSD and MIT go in.
I just hope you don't want to allow all these too:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php
[BIG snip of motivation behind allowing BSD]
> > Nevertheless, my point is that allowing MIT and Squeak-L gives us a
> > mixed situation that we still can handle. Adding more licenses to the
> > soup would IMHO be disastrous. And that is btw also the view of Andrew
> > Greenberg, our own specialist. Though it was a long time ago I saw
> > Andrew post.
>
> Yes, I understand your point. You don't want proliferation. Neither do
> I. I don't think SqL, BSD, MIT is proliferation. If I were voting for
As I said, you didn't write "SqL, BSD, MIT" - you wrote what I quoted
above.
> only two it would be SqL, BSD. (if I really had my druthers the SqL
> could go. :) BSD is as free as MIT but more business friendly. BSD is as
> well known if not more so than MIT.
>
> Since you invoked Andrew's name: ;)
>
> Quotes out of context and condensed. More context and links if desired
> are at the end of the message. The emphasis below is mine, not Andrews.
[SNIP of quotes]
> Andrew is pro BSD, (not anti MIT).
But this is not the point - I brought him up as a reference to someone
who has repeatedly warned this community from mixing licenses in the
official Squeak image. And righteously so IMHO. I did *not* mean or
imply that he (or I for that matter) has anything against BSD.
And for that matter - if my memory serves he has always stated that
*base official Squeak* should be under Squeak-L (and not BSD/MIT).
> I am pro BSD, not anti MIT.
>
> Anyway y'all do what y'all think is best. Let your conscience be your
> Guide. ;)
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jimmie Houchin
> Businessman
I always listen. :)
regards, Göran
More information about the Squeakfoundation
mailing list