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

[email protected] wrote:
> Jimmie Houchin <[email protected]> wrote:
> [SNIP]
> 
>>>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?
> 
> Definitely not. If we mix up a lot of licenses we will make it more or
> less impossible for people to know under what circumstances they can use
> Squeak.

I don't believe it would lead to a proliferation of licenses.
I also don't believe there to be very many licenses which qualify by my
statement of as free or freer than SqL.  MIT, BSD, X11 (I think) being 
the only ones I am consciously aware of.

>>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.
> 
> I hardly think the difference between those is significant.

Having a no endorsement clause is significant and is very standard in 
business. BSD is every bit as free as MIT, but includes a very minimal 
clause which is very conducive for businesses.

As a businessman I can easily see wanting the no endorsement clause.

Example.

ezboard decides it really doesn't want to pay Cincom VW license fees 
anymore and decide to migrate to Squeak. They think Squeak is perfect 
but will require some infrastructure improvements to handle their load. 
They want to be a part of the community and decide to open source their 
non-business exclusive infrastructure code. The community agrees some of 
their code would be great to include in the image. ezboard elects by the 
advice of their attorney to use the BSD license and include a no 
endorsement clause. They didn't want Göran Squeak developer 
extraordinaire to market his new product Squezeboard using ezboard name 
as a contributor to Squeak to market his product.

Or lets say ezboard themselves release a BSD Squezeboard product to SM2.
Fine you would say to that. But ezboard wants all ezboard OS 
contributions under a single license. MIT isn't it.

The community would then have to decide ezboard infrastructure 
contributions go in the image or no? If no, the Squeak community chalks 
up another, we didn't accept another great piece of code in the image. 
That would be sad if it would be entirely due to using BSD not MIT.

Don't underestimate business needs or requirements. The no endorsement 
clause is a good thing, when needed and applied appropriately.

> Nevertheless, my point is that allowing MIT and Squeak-L gives us a
> mixed situation that we still can handle. Adding more licenses to the
> soup would IMHO be disastrous. And that is btw also the view of Andrew
> Greenberg, our own specialist. Though it was a long time ago I saw
> Andrew post.

Yes, I understand your point. You don't want proliferation. Neither do 
I. I don't think SqL, BSD, MIT is proliferation. If I were voting for 
only two it would be SqL, BSD. (if I really had my druthers the SqL 
could go. :) BSD is as free as MIT but more business friendly. BSD is as 
well known if not more so than MIT.

Since you invoked Andrew's name:  ;)

Quotes out of context and condensed. More context and links if desired 
are at the end of the message. The emphasis below is mine, not Andrews.

Nov2002:
I would strongly recommend Squeak-L or BSD for Smalltalk-based code.

Jan2003:
For original code, suggest using Squeak-L, or freer (as in BPL/MIT, not 
GPL).

March2003:
As much as I agree with this
(and _*like BSD over any other alternatives suggested to date*_),

later March2003:
For my part, I think it is better to go KISS -- BSD is a nice, 
minimalist, OSI-acceptable license that works.


Andrew is pro BSD, (not anti MIT).
I am pro BSD, not anti MIT.

Anyway y'all do what y'all think is best. Let your conscience be your 
Guide. ;)

Thanks for listening.

Respectfully,

Jimmie Houchin
Businessman








More context and links:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2002-November/049615.html
Andrew wrote:   (his first sentence)
"""
In the past we have used an LGPL/Squeal-L dual license, but only in the 
context of plugins.  I would strongly recommend Squeak-L or BSD for 
Smalltalk-based code.
"""

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2003-January/051701.html
Andrew wrote:
"""
For original code, suggest using Squeak-L, or freer (as in BPL/MIT, not 
GPL).  Anything else is a recipe for failure, and risks a great project 
rotting on the vine for license conflicts later on.
"""

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2003-March/054797.html
Andrew wrote:
"""
As much as I agree with this (and like BSD over any other alternatives 
suggested to date), merely obtaining Apple's consensus would not suffice.
"""

And then later in that same thread Andrew wrote:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2003-March/054856.html
"""
Of course, the hard part is finding a substitute license that everyone
can agree on.  I like the BSD idea, but there are still some who prefer
a viral solution, at least for the interpreter code.  For my part, i
think it is better to go KISS -- BSD is a nice, minimalist,
OSI-acceptable license that works.
"""