Ugh.. adding more political motivations and limitations to the license? I'd be happy to drop that clause entirely (though it might not be practical). But why should we strengthen this limitation? I'm sure you see that using the license as a weapon puts more legal pressure on it. Look how much clearer BSD is than GPL.
If someone is a miser, bad karma is punishment enough IMO.
Daniel
Tim Rowledge tim@sumeru.stanford.edu wrote:
On Friday, April 4, 2003, at 04:25 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
Since they were modifying and extending the system they _had_ to release those changes under the SqueakL just like the rest of us.
Slight correction: Squeak-L is not viral. It does not require you to release modifications under Squeak-L. All it requires is to make the code "publicly available".
That could actually be a problem in some cases. Say developer X releases some system changes as required but insists on the GPL. They have been publically released but are effectively unusable within the main system. And I suppose that in a sense it would 'block' us from implementing the same thing unless one could prove it clean. Ugly. Perhaps we need to assert that 'publically available' is interpreted as 'usable in the main public image'.
tim
tim@sumeru.stanford.edu
Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org