[Squeakfoundation] Allow MIT-licensed code to
be partof "SqueakOfficial"?
Jimmie Houchin
jhouchin at texoma.net
Mon Nov 17 22:01:40 CET 2003
Andreas Raab wrote:
>>Fantasy example: ***disclaimer
>
> And yet, if this would be a package on SqueakMap and if it can be loaded
> into "basic" it would still remain a non-issue for the purpose of our
> discussion. This is what I wanted to point out here - as long as there's a
> way to start from a well-known point and assemble your image you don't have
> a (legal) problem. For example, you could download the basic image _without_
> sockets at all and the first thing you'd have to do is to get yourself a
> socket implementation (which you'd load via the file list for example).
True. I just didn't know how low or small *basic* would be.
> If you go to the extreme (such as Squat) we may never have a problem with
> licenses except at the very lowest level. As long as you say "this is Squeak
> and everything else is just packages loaded for your convenience" there is
> (AFAICT) no problem.
Now I like the Squat and build up proposition.
From there with the probable exception of GPL-like licenses most
anything would be reasonably okay.
> This isn't to say that I _like_ having all those licenses mixed up with one
> another (in particular not if one package requires one with a different
> license) but maybe that's another good reason to start thinking about a
> community license for Squeak.
Absolutely. The fewer the licenses the better, provided the ones we
choose meet a high percentage of requirements.
I think the BSD license fits the most, next MIT.
I have long been an advocate of a Squeak Community License and advocate
of moving as much Squeak code to that license.
I've even submitted such a license based on BSD to the list.
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2003-February/053544.html
I think a good foundation for license requirements would be:
Requirement: "as free or freer than SqL"
Encouragement: (in order) SqueakCommunityLicense, BSD or MIT.
Permissible: SqL** and then allow something which meets requirement.***
** SqL should be considered a legacy license and primarily used for
stuff which we received under it, but not for post Apple/Disney code if
at all possible. But as it would not introduce a license conflict, it
would be under the permissible section.
*** Discussion as to why SCL,BSD,MIT are insufficient for licensor.
And if at the same time we move towards having as minimal an image as
possible from which to build. I think that would further strengthen what
we can use from outside Squeak.
But I think the Requirement/Encouragement is not only legal and
technological, but also social. As a community many will select a
license based on our social desires/requirements. While a minimal Squeak
image would free us up considerably, legally and technologically,
socially I think my Requirement/Encouragement should be our position.
My 2 centavos. :)
Jimmie Houchin
[snip]
More information about the Squeakfoundation
mailing list