<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 16, 2008 2:47 AM, Bert Freudenberg <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Jan 15, 2008, at 4:11 , Frank Shearar wrote:<br>> Surely it means that most of Squeak 3.10 ("most" meaning<br>> "everything touched<br>> by a signatory since Squeak 1.1") is under the MIT licence? (Given
<br>> that<br>> <a href="http://netjam.org/squeak/SqueakDistributionAgreement.pdf" target="_blank">http://netjam.org/squeak/SqueakDistributionAgreement.pdf</a> mentions<br>> MIT, not<br>> Apache 2.0.)<br><br></div>
Correct - an Apache "base" with MIT extensions.<font color="#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br><br>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.
<br><br>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.
<br><br>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.<br><br>Gulik. <br></div></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg">