Contribution licensing
Daniel Vainsencher
danielv at tx.technion.ac.il
Fri Mar 23 15:02:31 UTC 2007
Craig Latta wrote:
[snip]
> What we're trying to do
> here is establish appropriately permissive license terms for what we had
> up to this point. After that, under those permissive terms, any entity
> (such as the Squeak Foundation) is at liberty to take that body of code
> and make releases under the terms they prefer (subject to the modest
> requirements of the MIT license cited in the agreement).
>
Is there any code that has been included in the current Squeak releases
(or otherwise contributed) after the effective dates of their contributors?
> Going forward, I advocate requiring an explicit licensing statement
> from each contributor for each future contribution, and that the terms
> be those of the MIT license. It won't be hard, and, let's face it, if we
> did otherwise we would continue to chew up large amounts of time
> discussing licensing.
>
Sounds good to me. Is this the opening shot of a(nother) squeak-dev
"what will we do with future licenses" debate on the topic, or will the
board decide this issue? Actually, I think the position you advocate has
been consensus for quite a while, but maybe I'm wrong.
>> If they are moot, I would be grateful for an explanation.
>>
>
> They're not moot, and I hope I've given a thorough and clear
> explanation all the same. (Please accept my apologies if it was *too*
> thorough :).
>
Your answer was clear, and quite informative. Would you Curious that you
should choose a style of communication which induces you to apologize in
advance :)
Daniel
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|