License questions.

Michael van der Gulik mikevdg at
Tue Jan 15 20:03:39 UTC 2008

On Jan 15, 2008 10:11 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at>

> 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
> license.
> All changes made by people who have signed[1] the license agreement [2]
> are
> now under the MIT license.
> All changes made by people who have /not/ signed[3] the license agreement
> remain under the Squeak license.
> > So, does this mean that all of Squeak, except the contributions by
> people
> who haven't signed the license
> > agreement, is now (as of Squeak 3.10) released under the Apache 2.0
> license?
> Surely it means that most of Squeak 3.10 ("most" meaning "everything
> touched
> by a signatory since Squeak 1.1") is under the MIT licence? (Given that
> mentions MIT, not
> Apache 2.0.)
> > I'm asking this because I'm about to embark on some significant changes
> to
> 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
> licenced.

My changes aren't intended for Squeak "core". They are going to be for a
fork of Squeak called SecureSqueak (
The changes are a bit too radical to be incorporated into the
squeak.orgimage, and they're guaranteed to be incompatible with every
package ever
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 mailing list