RE: Allow MIT-licensed code to be part of "SqueakOfficial"?

Hi Guys,

There's another way of looking at this problem, which I'd like to point =
out.
If we assume to have a "basic" and a "full" release, then we can =
effectively
include in "full" whatever license there is. How so? Well, practically
speaking "full" would constitute only a bundle of packages, which are =
loaded
under their appropriate license. This will (naturally) lead to a =
pollution
of the "full" image with potentially lots of varying license, but given =
that
anyone who cares can use "basic" to load only the packages that fit his =
or
her desires, that's no problem whatsover. Hell, "full" might even =
include
GPL-ed stuff, since if you want to ship a system which is not affected =
by
GPL, you simply load your packages (I wouldn't really want this but it =
sure
as hell is an option).

So the point here is that if we have a "basic" and "full" release, the
licenses of the packages loaded into full matter not one bit, except =
from
what we think the most common users of "full" likely would accept (which =
I
think includes BSD, MIT and possibly even more).

Of course, this doesn't really solve the problem at hand since for SmaCC =
and
RB we're really talking about "basic" here. But it is worthwhile to keep
this in mind - it brings us down to a discussion on a much more limited
basis (for example, Jimmie's ezBoard example would fall through since =
this
were a package loaded into full).

Cheers,
  - Andreas