Re: Allow MIT-licensed code to be part of "Squeak Official"?

Hello,

No voting power, but wanting to express one simple question/thought. :)

[email protected] wrote:

> Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> Yes, and I agree. MIT should be fine. So I vote for allowing it. But
> only it.

I think allowing MIT would be great. In fact I would think any standard 
as free as SqL or better should be allowed. Why only MIT?

BSD is also a standard well known license that may be more comfortable 
to corporate types. MIT is great for individuals and some corporations 
might be perfectly happy with MIT but for some BSD is better.

 From OSI: http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

Explains the difference between MIT and BSD.

"""
Note the new BSD license is thus equivalent to the MIT License, except 
for the no-endorsement final clause.
"""

BSD allows individuals or corporations to place a no-endorsement final 
clause. That's the difference.

Thanks for listening.

Jimmie Houchin