Indeed, dual licensing can be complicated and unnecessary -- but it is 
a useful technique to resolve political situations.  It is how the 
Perl/FSF dispute was resolved, and it is a useful resolution for 
software that is already singly-licensed, such as was done with the 
MPeg3 plugin.  In short, a straight public license is certainly 
adequate, but a dual license may be necessary in some circumstances.

Dual-licensing is not an option for derivative software made from 
Squeak, which code is subject to Squeak-L in most cases, but only for 
entirely original code.

For original code, suggest using Squeak-L, or freer (as in BPL/MIT, not 
GPL).  Anything else is a recipe for failure, and risks a great project 
rotting on the vine for license conflicts later on.

On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 07:34 AM, Noury Bouraqadi wrote:

> goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> >
> >[...]
>> My advice is to simply duallicense under SqueakL and MIT. That would
>> keep everyone happy except for Richard Stallman, but GPL isn't a
>> practical option in Squeak land anyway. MIT is AFAIK mixable with
>> anything since it practially doesn't contain any restrictions at all.
> What is MIT?
>
> Does it make sens to have two different licences for the same uses of 
> the same software? I mean licences can be conflicting. So how to avoid 
> conflicts and how to know when one is "active" or not?