Sublicensing

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at netvision.net.il
Sat Aug 16 10:45:27 UTC 2003


It isn't a matter of doing a rewrite to please the lawyers - it is a
matter of paying attention while we keep doing what we used to, just a
little different. Did Anthony write a new compiler to please lawyers?
no, but if his code is dual licensed as MIT, its a step towards freeing
us from them...

We already intend to evolve squeak on, not just live with it as it is.
So its mostly a matter of prefering to rewrite parts from scratch,
rather than preferring to refactor, and at some point, we'll be free.

I think the first thing we need to do is to relicense everything in SM
that we can to dual license. Currently(*), 7 packages are MIT licensed,
55 are MIT/SqueakL dual licensed, and 217 have no MIT licensing. The
author of any package that's not MIT licensed should talk to the other
contributors, make sure there is no externally originated code in the
package, and relicense as SqueakL\MIT.

(*) explore this - 
SMSqueakMap default cardsByName 
	groupBy: [:c | c categories detect: [:e | '*MIT*' match: e name]
ifNone: ['no mit']] 
	having: [:s | true]

Daniel

Cees de Groot <cg at cdegroot.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 21:36, Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus wrote:
> > Eg: pretty much anything in Squeak up to the point
> > that Squeak Central left Apple.  And maybe more.
> > 
> Err, Disney. And certainly more, namely every single package with
> unclear licensing status. 
> 
> But, yes, that's the only resolution of the licensing issue I can see
> (as you know, I tried the 're-license' route and failed). And I, for
> one, will not spend a single minute of my time on it. By the time you
> are done re-writing, company X will step up claiming patent on a crucial
> piece of the code, then Apple steps up claiming that NewSqueak was not
> properly cleanroom engineerd, ...
> 
> In other words: too much work for too little gain. I'd be prepared to
> spend some time to get some extra legal padding (which is what I did
> when trying to talk Apple into more favorable licensing terms), but a
> rewrite just to satisfy *lawyers*? Nay, too much honour on them...



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list