Hello Göran,
I am not trying to ruffle any feathers or get you send me a can of Swedish fish. ;)
For those who aren't in the know. http://www.svensson.com/norge/sur1.htm
goran.krampe@bluefish.se wrote: [snip]
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.
That is correct. I just don't believe there are many licenses which are as free or freer than SqL. I think most of them bring increased restrictions and not increased freedoms. That is why I wrote a more inclusive statement. But SqL,BSD,MIT would cover to my understanding most any ground that a license which is as free or freer than Squeak will go.
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.
I can understand somebody not thinking it was important. No problem there.
Fine (sigh, I can see where this is going...) - then why don't we agree to let BSD and MIT go in.
Okay.
I just hope you don't want to allow all these too: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php
No way.
[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.
Correct, I will concede my lack of clarity.
[snip]
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.
I agree. I am not for a proliferation of licenses in the Squeak base or image. Well I would prefer not to have a proliferation in general. A few well understood licenses is/should be sufficient.
I just allow for situations I don't understand or can't conceive of myself. If the Guides will start with BSD, MIT, SqL and be open to business arguements in the future for a license which is as free or freer but contains something we don't know about. Then I think we are in good shape to move forward and allow business contributions. Hopefully that will come. :)
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 don't remember. In one of the messages I quoted he suggested tracking down all changes since 1.0 who contributed them and try to get as many as possible under BSD.
[snip]
Thanks for listening.
I always listen. :)
Ya! and thanks.
Jimmie Houchin