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

> Fantasy example: ***disclaimer

And yet, if this would be a package on SqueakMap and if it can be loaded
into "basic" it would still remain a non-issue for the purpose of our
discussion. This is what I wanted to point out here - as long as there's =
a
way to start from a well-known point and assemble your image you don't =
have
a (legal) problem. For example, you could download the basic image =
_without_
sockets at all and the first thing you'd have to do is to get yourself a
socket implementation (which you'd load via the file list for example).

If you go to the extreme (such as Squat) we may never have a problem =
with
licenses except at the very lowest level. As long as you say "this is =
Squeak
and everything else is just packages loaded for your convenience" there =
is
(AFAICT) no problem.

This isn't to say that I _like_ having all those licenses mixed up with =
one
another (in particular not if one package requires one with a different
license) but maybe that's another good reason to start thinking about a
community license for Squeak.

Cheers,
  - Andreas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]=20
> [mailto:[email protected]]=20
> On Behalf Of Jimmie Houchin
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 8:59 PM
> To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
> Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation] Allow MIT-licensed code to be=20
> partof "SqueakOfficial"?
>=20
>=20
> Hello,
>=20
> Andreas Raab wrote:
>=20
> > Hi Guys,
> >=20
> > There's another way of looking at this problem, which I'd=20
> like to point out.
> > If we assume to have a "basic" and a "full" release, then=20
> we can effectively
> > include in "full" whatever license there is. How so? Well,=20
> practically
> > speaking "full" would constitute only a bundle of packages,=20
> which are loaded
> > under their appropriate license. This will (naturally) lead=20
> to a pollution
> > of the "full" image with potentially lots of varying=20
> license, but given that
> > anyone who cares can use "basic" to load only the packages=20
> that fit his or
> > her desires, that's no problem whatsover. Hell, "full"=20
> might even include
> > GPL-ed stuff, since if you want to ship a system which is=20
> not affected by
> > GPL, you simply load your packages (I wouldn't really want=20
> this but it sure
> > as hell is an option).
>=20
> GPL is a very sticky wicket for Squeak.
> I think we should be very reticent to include any GPL=20
> Smalltalk code any=20
> pre-package image, ie: full or such.
>=20
> What end-users load after they receive the image is their own=20
> business=20
> and should not cause any responsibility upon the community.
>=20
> Example, the MySQL driver is GPL.
>=20
> > So the point here is that if we have a "basic" and "full"=20
> release, the
> > licenses of the packages loaded into full matter not one=20
> bit, except from
> > what we think the most common users of "full" likely would=20
> accept (which I
> > think includes BSD, MIT and possibly even more).
> >=20
> > Of course, this doesn't really solve the problem at hand=20
> since for SmaCC and
> > RB we're really talking about "basic" here. But it is=20
> worthwhile to keep
> > this in mind - it brings us down to a discussion on a much=20
> more limited
> > basis (for example, Jimmie's ezBoard example would fall=20
> through since this
> > were a package loaded into full).
>=20
> Well the ezboard example had two components. One was in image=20
> infrastructure contributions, the other the Squezeboard=20
> bboard package=20
> on SM.
>=20
> The infrastructure contributions would need to be a community=20
> (Guides,=20
> Squeak-authority, whoever puts stuff into the canonical images)=20
> acceptable license.
>=20
> Fantasy example: ***disclaimer
> Say they rewrote the socket code based upon BSD's KQueue or Linux's=20
> epoll(?) and whatever if MSes comparable. Say it doubled socket code=20
> performance and increased stability. Stephen, Avi, G=F6ran and=20
> Cees were=20
> drooling over this contribution. :)
>=20
> Would the Squeak-authorities allow the BSD licensed contribution,=20
> because the business required a no-endorsement clause. I would think=20
> this would probably be *basic* image code. If not for sake of=20
> discussion, consider the contribution to be *basic* image code.
>=20
> The Squezeboard contribution would be an SM package and could be=20
> licensed most any way but hopefully not GPL.
>=20
> I hope that makes my example clearer.
>=20
> Jimmie Houchin
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ***disclaimer
> The example was merely a fantasy example to demonstrate what could be=20
> consider definitively in image code. I am in no way making any claims=20
> that there are any major problems with the socket code.
>=20
>=20
> ***no-endorsement clause  ;)
> Please don't use my name any connection with claims against=20
> the Squeak=20
> socket code.
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>=20