License questions.

Michael van der Gulik mikevdg at
Tue Jan 15 20:39:17 UTC 2008

On Jan 16, 2008 2:47 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at> wrote:

> On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:11 , Frank Shearar wrote:
> > 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.)
> Correct - an Apache "base" with MIT extensions.

Is it possible for Squeak to be considered an "Apache base with MIT
extensions"? The base (Squeak 1.1) is obviously Apache licensed, and if you
made a massive changeset of all changes since then, that changeset would be
MIT licensed, but if you combine the two, the result would then need to be
considered purely Apache licensed because of the complexity of determining
what each bit of code is licensed under.

For example, a method under the Apache license has a couple of lines changes
and released under the MIT license. It is bordering on legal absurdity to
have a work where every second clause would be under a different license.
Even if the whole method had been rewritten, the class name and method name
remain the same and thus under the original Apache license, and often a
method name is about a quarter of the text of the method.

If true, this would mean that the result of any changes I make to the Squeak
Kernel would necessarily be released under the Apache license.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list