Hello Göran,

It seems to me that dual licensing can help in a few ways. Anything 
under the SqL can evolve with Squeak and the SqL. Hopefully someday the 
SqL will improve and certain language can be removed. Having something 
dual licensed like with MIT would allow people to more easily port to 
other Smalltalks. At least to my understanding. Allowing for peaceful 
coexistance in Squeak and the greater Smalltalk community.

Maybe even a simple
Dual License: SqueakL and MIT
option on SM.

Yes I know you said you could check multiple ones. Maybe somelike the 
above would enable/encourage?

Just some thoughts.

Jimmie


goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> Hi Serge and Andrew!
> 
> (I included you Andrew because perhaps you have a simple answer)
> 
> I (Goran) wrote:
> [SNIP]
> 
>>>So you don't "combine" the licenses - instead you just say:
>>>
>>>This code is available under the SqueakL or under the MIT license. Pick
>>>any you like. (And of course you need to include the license in
>>>question. Don't forget to add your name and year to the MIT template).
>>
> 
> And Serge:
> 
>>It means i need to put the two licences inside the changeset ?
>>or have two changesets one with SqueakL, one with MIT License ?
> 
> 
> Hmmm, well, I think it would suffice to have a note in the preamble that
> the code is under both those licenses and an url to a page somewhere
> with more info including the full license texts. But I am not sure -
> perhaps Andrew could answer this one.
> 
> So Andrew: Do we in general need to include the full license somehow in
> a downloadable package? Or does a note with a url suffice?
> 
> [SNIP]
> 
>>>PS. Perhaps we should add MIT to the licenses to choose from at SM. Note
>>>that you can select multiple licenses - just use the select box further
>>>down to add more categories.
>>
>>Please do.
> 
> 
> Yes, I will ask for other category proposals in another posting too.
> 
> regards, Göran