On 24/03/2008, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Bruce Badger <bwbadger at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > Jason,
>  > I
>  >  assert that I started work on Swazoo because it was licensed under the
>  >  LGPL and contributed work under that license in good faith.  I think
>  >  my track record backs me up here.
>
>
> I believe you.  But the other guys may have been working under good
>  faith that it *wasn't* LGPL.

What other guys?  Anyone who went to the source forge project at any
time from when it was first established until until just a couple of
days ago would see that Swazoo was under the LGPL.

What evidence do you have that people thought otherwise, and how did
these other people form their view?

You know, I really thought the error on the Squeak source code system
was just a typo and this would be resolved with an "Oops, sorry" and
the record would be corrected and that would be that.

What we seem to have is a deliberate effort to change the licensing of
Swazoo from LGPL to MIT by stealth.  The project started in 2000 with
an explicit statement that it was under the LGPL (see the wayback
machine) but sometime recently, with no discussion with the copyright
holders someone seems to have introduced the idea that the licensing
was not so clear, and that any license will do, and that, oh, we can
just pick the MIT licence (LGPL?  What's that?).

I see now that this situation is a real mess.  But that is not of my
doing.  I seek the same consistency and clarity in licensing that
others on this list have (rightly in my view) said is important.  I
wish to see the Swazoo project correctly documented as being under the
LGPL.

All the best,
    Bruce
-- 
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/