ask for APSL? for real this time?
goran.krampe at bluefish.se
goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Thu Jan 8 08:09:58 UTC 2004
"Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> It certainly *IS* legally dubious, to wit: if the licensor does not
> have the right to license the underlying work under BOTH licenses.
> That is the problem. If we had the right to dual license our code
> without violation of Squeak-L, then we could simply license it under
> MIT as well.
It is NOT "the problem" for NEW code.
Please separate the issues here - either you create a modified work
based on code under Squeak-L and then of course you must abide to the
rules of Squeak-L - dual licensing under MIT is then not possible. Dual
licensing under a different license would be possible though, but
probably not overly useful.
But if you create an original work of your own - like say brand new
classes for displaying SVG or something - then of course you can dual
license it and I *still* would like to hear what would be "legally
dubious" with that.
regards, Göran
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|