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

Hello Göran,

I am not trying to ruffle any feathers or get you send me a can of 
Swedish fish. ;)

For those who aren't in the know.
http://www.svensson.com/norge/sur1.htm

[email protected] wrote:
[snip]
>>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.

That is correct. I just don't believe there are many licenses which are 
as free or freer than SqL. I think most of them bring increased 
restrictions and not increased freedoms. That is why I wrote a more 
inclusive statement. But SqL,BSD,MIT would cover to my understanding 
most any ground that a license which is as free or freer than Squeak 
will go.

>>>>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.

I can understand somebody not thinking it was important.
No problem there.

> Fine (sigh, I can see where this is going...) - then why don't we agree
> to let BSD and MIT go in.

Okay.

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

No way.

> [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.

Correct, I will concede my lack of clarity.

[snip]
> 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.

I agree. I am not for a proliferation of licenses in the Squeak base or 
image. Well I would prefer not to have a proliferation in general. A few 
well understood licenses is/should be sufficient.

I just allow for situations I don't understand or can't conceive of 
myself. If the Guides will start with BSD, MIT, SqL and be open to 
business arguements in the future for a license which is as free or 
freer but contains something we don't know about. Then I think we are in 
good shape to move forward and allow business contributions. Hopefully 
that will come. :)

> 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 don't remember.
In one of the messages I quoted he suggested tracking down all changes 
since 1.0 who contributed them and try to get as many as possible under BSD.

[snip]

>>Thanks for listening.
> 
> I always listen. :)

Ya!  and thanks.

Jimmie Houchin