On Thursday, November 1, 2001, at 12:25 PM, Chris Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 08:12:47AM -0500, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2001, at 03:29 AM, Chris Reuter wrote:
I have a thought. Why don't we write an open-source license for Squeak goodies?
I'm envisioning something similar to the LGPL, only written to suit an image-based product and without some of the more annoying bits.
Of course you are free to do so. Under Squeak-L, you can pretty much relicense anything subject to the terms of the Squeak-L, which does somewhat limit the scope of the license.
Actually, since I'm referring to code _I_ wrote. I can release those changesets under any licence I want within the bounds of copyright law. But that's beside the point and not my intention.
Understood, although you ARE limited somewhat, to the extent it is derived from Squeak-L code. Despite that freedom, I reiterate;
Please don't, however. The downsides outweigh the upside.
So what licence should I use for changesets? My reading of the Squeak-L seems to indicate that it only applies to Squeak itself. Am I wrong about this? Can I release an original changeset under the Squeak-L?
Yes, and that's what you should do, for now, IMHO. I don't like it best, but it preserves our options better.