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.