[ANN] Closure Compiler

Andrew C. Greenberg werdna at mucow.com
Wed Mar 26 02:54:13 UTC 2003


I believe that we could survive with a communal understanding to 
release all of our code under Squeak-L, or a more liberal license, dual 
licensed with Squeak-L understanding that it gets viraled into Squeak-L 
when thrust into the image.

Ideally, my view is that we should encourage TPTB to move to a more 
BSD-style license.

Truth to tell, I'm not sure it isn't time to simply clean room the 
Apple code out of Squeak.  I suggest one or two passes at the masters 
and then to move on.  Can we get a license to rebuild Squeak from the 
Smalltalk-80 folks at Xerox, or another licensee, or is that crazy 
naive?

On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 09:27 PM, Brent Vukmer wrote:

> Andrew, what do you think is the most sensible way?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Andrew C. Greenberg [mailto:werdna at mucow.com]
> Sent:	Tue 3/25/2003 9:03 PM
> To:	The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Cc:	
> Subject:	Re: [ANN] Closure Compiler
> On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 03:55 PM, Cees de Groot wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 21:06, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
>>> Please don't do this folks.  We have enough licensing issues already.
>>> Promiscuously cross-licensing like this could kill either SM or
>>> Squeak,
>>> or both.
>>>
>> Or neither. Most likely outcome, I believe.
>
> Excellent bit of lawyering.  Too bad you are not one.  I am here to say
> that we have a problem.  There are way more sensible ways to fix this
> than to ignore or exacerbate it.  If this is the approach the community
> takes, count me out.  I would have no more time to waste for a dying
> project that doesn't even yet know it is legally dead.
>
>
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list