Allow MIT-licensed code to be part of "Squeak Official"?
Doug Way <[email protected]> Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:31:25 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.foundation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Before we incorporate the SmaCC compiler into the base release (it's already been approved), I thought I'd double-check this point. Up until now, only Squeak-L licensed source code has been allowed to be included in the base release. (Base release meaning anything "Squeak Official", including everything in the Full release.) Submitted code which doesn't specify a license is automatically licensed under Squeak-L. So if we incorporate SmaCC, we'll be changing this rule. Basically, this sounds okay to me, but if we decide to do this, we should be specific that only Squeak-L and/or MIT-licensed code is allowed in the base release... we're not allowing any other arbitrarily licensed code. We've discussed the MIT license a bit and it seems agreeable to most, it's a very simple license, and there doesn't seem to be a problem with having a mix of Squeak-L and MIT-licensed stuff in the base. (I know a few people think that MIT is too unrestrictive, but I don't think that's a fatal flaw at the moment.) Is this decision significant enough to have a vote of the Guides? (Non-source-code things such as fonts are a different story... I think it is acceptable to have other non-SqueakL/MIT licenses in the base release for fonts, this includes the Accufonts & BitStream Vera fonts.) - Doug