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

[Doug Way]

There seems to be agreement that allowing the MIT license into "Squeak 
Official" (Full/Basic) is reasonable.  (And also possibly BSD, but we 
might as well put that off until it is needed.)

In the case of SmaCC, we're really talking about something in the Basic 
release, the compiler, which is more central than the multimedia/etc. 
stuff in the Full release.  We could potentially be looser about the 
licenses of things in the Full release, as Andreas discussed.

(See http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3412 for a description of 
Full/Basic/Minimal.)

On Monday, November 17, 2003, at 04:45 AM, goran.krampe at bluefish.se 
wrote:

> I believe you are correct and as I said in another post - the only 
> issue
> I can see is that if we decide to sublicense it as Squeak-L (which I
> assume there is no actual need to do, licensewise) then someone (a 
> legal
> entity) would need to do it. And I am not sure what it really "means"
> for that entity, especially regarding mentionings of Apple and
> indemnification etc.
>
> So best would probably be to simply not sublicense it. :)

Right, I don't think we need to do that at this point.  This means that 
we just keep SmaCC as MIT-licensed.

But we need to keep track of which code in the Basic image is under 
which license.  For SmaCC, we could do this by having it tracked as 
another "in-image" package, like the small handful of others in the 
Basic image such as SUnit and SqueakMap.  This is a little bit of a 
hassle, but it seems like the best way to track the code at this point. 
  Everything else (for now, at least) in the Basic image is licensed 
under Squeak-L.

If someone wants to make a bug fix to SmaCC, the fix would go into a 
new version of the SmaCC package (which means the fix would be 
MIT-licensed like the rest of SmaCC), and then the new package version 
would be moved into the Basic image when needed.  In any case, the 
SmaCC package on SqueakMap would always contain exactly the code which 
is MIT-licensed.

How does this sound?

- Doug

(p.s. Yeah, eventually we may want to encourage more and more chunks of 
Squeak Full/Basic to be licensed under a Squeak-Community-License or 
some other well-known license without some of the Squeak-L baggage, but 
that's another issue, and we really need to have things broken up into 
packages beforehand...)