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

Hi!

Jimmie Houchin <[email protected]> wrote:
> [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.

Ok, you wrote "In fact I would think any standard as free as SqL or
better should be allowed" - and I think I can find tons of those. But if
you are talking about MIT/BSD (isn't X11 the same as MIT? Don't have
time to check right now) that is a much, much smaller crowd.

> >>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.

I know that. But I can admit I didn't think it was that important to
people/companies.
Fine (sigh, I can see where this is going...) - then why don't we agree
to let BSD and MIT go in.

I just hope you don't want to allow all these too:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php

[BIG snip of motivation behind allowing BSD]

> > 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 

As I said, you didn't write "SqL, BSD, MIT" - you wrote what I quoted
above.

> 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.

[SNIP of quotes]
> Andrew is pro BSD, (not anti MIT).

But this is not the point - I brought him up as a reference to someone
who has repeatedly warned this community from mixing licenses in the
official Squeak image. And righteously so IMHO. I did *not* mean or
imply that he (or I for that matter) has anything against BSD.

And for that matter - if my memory serves he has always stated that
*base official Squeak* should be under Squeak-L (and not BSD/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

I always listen. :)

regards, Göran