Debian and SqueakL revisited again...(was Re: Debian source package)
Chris Reuter
cgreuter at csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Thu Nov 1 17:25:35 UTC 2001
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.
> 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?
If so, then never mind.
Oh, and sorry for bringing this thread back from the dead.
--Chris
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|