Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> Bert Freudenberg <bert at isg.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote:
> >
> MIT is simpler, explicit on the permissions, and more concise with other
> stuff. Just read them, they can be printed on a page together.
> http://opensource.ilisys.com.au/licenses/mit-license.html
> http://opensource.ilisys.com.au/licenses/bsd-license.php

I see. Yes, MIT it should be :)

>>Add 1.5: "However, SqueakL is free for all practical purposes. That 
>>means you can download, use, and modify Squeak as you wish and 
>>distribute or even sell your own Squeak-based projects. If your 
>>published projects changes something in existing classes or the Virtual 
>>Machine, you have to publish those changes in source code, but any 
>>additions may be kept private." I put this on the Swiki right away.
> 
> Why? this is a "Why do anything about SqueakL?" proposal/FAQ, not a
> "lets cheer for our wonderful license" FAQ. We already have that at
> minnow ;-) anyway, this information is already in 2. Unless you see a
> particular reason to have this rather strong statement in this
> particular place, I think we should lose it.

Well, if someone is concerned with the licensing he will sooner or later 
stumble over this "FAQ". I'd want to assure these folks that they should 
not wait using Squeak until a license change is done. That could take 
years. Somewhere on that page the current state should be mentioned. 
Perhaps move that paragraph to the top as Preamble? Okay, did that. Feel 
free to edit :)


-- Bert