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

[Andreas Raab]

> Fantasy example: ***disclaimer

And yet, if this would be a package on SqueakMap and if it can be loaded
into "basic" it would still remain a non-issue for the purpose of our
discussion. This is what I wanted to point out here - as long as there's a
way to start from a well-known point and assemble your image you don't have
a (legal) problem. For example, you could download the basic image _without_
sockets at all and the first thing you'd have to do is to get yourself a
socket implementation (which you'd load via the file list for example).

If you go to the extreme (such as Squat) we may never have a problem with
licenses except at the very lowest level. As long as you say "this is Squeak
and everything else is just packages loaded for your convenience" there is
(AFAICT) no problem.

This isn't to say that I _like_ having all those licenses mixed up with one
another (in particular not if one package requires one with a different
license) but maybe that's another good reason to start thinking about a
community license for Squeak.

Cheers,
  - Andreas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeakfoundation-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeakfoundation-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] 
> On Behalf Of Jimmie Houchin
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 8:59 PM
> To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
> Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation] Allow MIT-licensed code to be 
> partof "SqueakOfficial"?
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Andreas Raab wrote:
> 
> > Hi Guys,
> > 
> > There's another way of looking at this problem, which I'd 
> like to point out.
> > If we assume to have a "basic" and a "full" release, then 
> we can effectively
> > include in "full" whatever license there is. How so? Well, 
> practically
> > speaking "full" would constitute only a bundle of packages, 
> which are loaded
> > under their appropriate license. This will (naturally) lead 
> to a pollution
> > of the "full" image with potentially lots of varying 
> license, but given that
> > anyone who cares can use "basic" to load only the packages 
> that fit his or
> > her desires, that's no problem whatsover. Hell, "full" 
> might even include
> > GPL-ed stuff, since if you want to ship a system which is 
> not affected by
> > GPL, you simply load your packages (I wouldn't really want 
> this but it sure
> > as hell is an option).
> 
> GPL is a very sticky wicket for Squeak.
> I think we should be very reticent to include any GPL 
> Smalltalk code any 
> pre-package image, ie: full or such.
> 
> What end-users load after they receive the image is their own 
> business 
> and should not cause any responsibility upon the community.
> 
> Example, the MySQL driver is GPL.
> 
> > So the point here is that if we have a "basic" and "full" 
> release, the
> > licenses of the packages loaded into full matter not one 
> bit, except from
> > what we think the most common users of "full" likely would 
> accept (which I
> > think includes BSD, MIT and possibly even more).
> > 
> > Of course, this doesn't really solve the problem at hand 
> since for SmaCC and
> > RB we're really talking about "basic" here. But it is 
> worthwhile to keep
> > this in mind - it brings us down to a discussion on a much 
> more limited
> > basis (for example, Jimmie's ezBoard example would fall 
> through since this
> > were a package loaded into full).
> 
> Well the ezboard example had two components. One was in image 
> infrastructure contributions, the other the Squezeboard 
> bboard package 
> on SM.
> 
> The infrastructure contributions would need to be a community 
> (Guides, 
> Squeak-authority, whoever puts stuff into the canonical images) 
> acceptable license.
> 
> Fantasy example: ***disclaimer
> Say they rewrote the socket code based upon BSD's KQueue or Linux's 
> epoll(?) and whatever if MSes comparable. Say it doubled socket code 
> performance and increased stability. Stephen, Avi, Göran and 
> Cees were 
> drooling over this contribution. :)
> 
> Would the Squeak-authorities allow the BSD licensed contribution, 
> because the business required a no-endorsement clause. I would think 
> this would probably be *basic* image code. If not for sake of 
> discussion, consider the contribution to be *basic* image code.
> 
> The Squezeboard contribution would be an SM package and could be 
> licensed most any way but hopefully not GPL.
> 
> I hope that makes my example clearer.
> 
> Jimmie Houchin
> 
> 
> 
> ***disclaimer
> The example was merely a fantasy example to demonstrate what could be 
> consider definitively in image code. I am in no way making any claims 
> that there are any major problems with the socket code.
> 
> 
> ***no-endorsement clause  ;)
> Please don't use my name any connection with claims against 
> the Squeak 
> socket code.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>