Michael van der Gulik
mikevdg at gmail.com
Tue Jan 15 20:03:39 UTC 2008
On Jan 15, 2008 10:11 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at angband.za.org>
> Michael van der Gulik asks:
> Could I get my understanding of the licensing situation verified please:
> Squeak 1.1 was originally released under the Squeak license. It has since
> been relicensed under the Apache 2.0 license.
> All changes made since Squeak 1.1 were originally under the Squeak
> All changes made by people who have signed the license agreement 
> now under the MIT license.
> All changes made by people who have /not/ signed the license agreement
> remain under the Squeak license.
> > So, does this mean that all of Squeak, except the contributions by
> who haven't signed the license
> > agreement, is now (as of Squeak 3.10) released under the Apache 2.0
> Surely it means that most of Squeak 3.10 ("most" meaning "everything
> by a signatory since Squeak 1.1") is under the MIT licence? (Given that
> http://netjam.org/squeak/SqueakDistributionAgreement.pdf mentions MIT, not
> Apache 2.0.)
> > I'm asking this because I'm about to embark on some significant changes
> the classes in Kernel and Collections
> > for my SecureSqueak project. I want the end result of this work to be
> released under the Apache 2.0 license, if
> > possible. These changes are scoped to Kernel, Collections and a handful
> of other classes.
> If I understand correctly, if you wanted these changes included in the
> Squeak "core" (whatever that means), the changes would have to be MIT
My changes aren't intended for Squeak "core". They are going to be for a
fork of Squeak called SecureSqueak (http://gulik.pbwiki.com/SecureSqueak).
The changes are a bit too radical to be incorporated into the
squeak.orgimage, and they're guaranteed to be incompatible with every
written for Squeak :-).
Everything I write that's written for Squeak is licensed under the MIT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev