[squeak-dev] comments on SFC agreement
Bert Freudenberg
bert at freudenbergs.de
Tue May 4 23:30:12 UTC 2010
On 04.05.2010, at 16:18, John M McIntosh wrote:
>
>
> On 2010-05-04, at 3:54 PM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>> ?
>>
>> It's intended to mean the same, yes. Where do you see a difference?
>>
>> - Bert -
>
> One is called (“Free Software”) the other is called ("MIT License")
Both MIT and Apache licenses are Free Software licenses. Those are the one we use. I do not see a contradiction.
> One is explicit, the other can mean any variation of the class of "Free Software" licenses?
It could, theoretically. We don't intend to accept any other license than MIT. But that agreement isn't a contributor's agreement, it does not actually specify the licenses we allow into Squeak. It's not supposed to.
> But if you ARE in fact restricting a license to use for contributions to Squeak as per http://squeak.org/SqueakLicense/
> then should you indicate that up front, or imply you are accepting any "Free Software" license?
These are the terms under which we join the SFC. We as Squeak project want to engage in producing Free Software - that's all that is stated there. If we didn't, the SFC would not accept us as member. That is the reason we have to state it.
What is the problem you perceive with this wording? To me it seemed quite understandable and acceptable.
- Bert -
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|