RE: re: Allow MIT-licensed code to be partof"SqueakOfficial"?

"Andreas Raab" <[email protected]> wrote:
[SNIP]
> For dual-licensed packages this would be trivial. For those which aren't we
> can still sublicense the package under Squeak-L if the original license
> allows it.

Yes, we could sublicense it to Squeak-L and it would probably make very
little difference to people using Squeak since they would probably need
to obey the "common denominator" effect anyway.

BUT... if we *would* sublicense these contributions into Squeak-L (which
I am not sure I think is necessary) - who would do it? The very reason
John Brant hesitated to release SmaCC etc under Squeak-L was that he
couldn't interpret what that meant for *him*.

And I can't really say what it would mean to say Squeakfoundation
(though that legal entity doesn't exist yet, or does it?) if it would
sublicense stuff available under MIT as Squeak-L.

If it would be something we will try then I would btw assume we made our
own Sqf-L.

> Cheers,
>   - Andreas

Cheers, Göran