On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 16:47, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> And also - we have vowed earlier to try to keep "Squeak official" under
> Squeak-L. Relying on the above "license" would definitely break that
> little "rule".
> 
Was the rule not 'Squeak-L or compatible'? Public domain seems
compatible to me. A very short license (even if it is just two
sentences, I think it still constitutes a license) with no conflicting
terms would qualify as well, I think.

Note that the stuff below is about the RB, not about SmaCC - the RB
download page has no terms at all, at least SmaCC comes with something
that can be understood as a rudimentary license :-).

> > (RB is just an example; the majority of Smalltalk goodies - including
> > some of mine ;-) - are distributed this way).
> 
> I know - I am probably just as big a sinner as everyone else. :-) But we
> really should try to keep track of these things.
> 
Why? Here's another question: can someone explain me why I should put
something under, say, MIT or BSD instead of downright dumping it into
the public domain? (I'm not interested in the SqueakL for my own work -
too much nonsense in there ;-))
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20030325/5513c6b9/attachment.pgp