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