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

Andreas Raab wrote:

>>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).

True. I just didn't know how low or small *basic* would be.

> 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.

Now I like the Squat and build up proposition.
 From there with the probable exception of GPL-like licenses most 
anything would be reasonably okay.

> 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.

Absolutely. The fewer the licenses the better, provided the ones we 
choose meet a high percentage of requirements.

I think the BSD license fits the most, next MIT.

I have long been an advocate of a Squeak Community License and advocate 
of moving as much Squeak code to that license.

I've even submitted such a license based on BSD to the list.
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2003-February/053544.html

I think a good foundation for license requirements would be:

Requirement:  "as free or freer than SqL"
Encouragement: (in order) SqueakCommunityLicense, BSD or MIT.
Permissible: SqL** and then allow something which meets requirement.***

** SqL should be considered a legacy license and primarily used for 
stuff which we received under it, but not for post Apple/Disney code if 
at all possible. But as it would not introduce a license conflict, it 
would be under the permissible section.

*** Discussion as to why SCL,BSD,MIT are insufficient for licensor.


And if at the same time we move towards having as minimal an image as 
possible from which to build. I think that would further strengthen what 
we can use from outside Squeak.

But I think the Requirement/Encouragement is not only legal and 
technological, but also social. As a community many will select a 
license based on our social desires/requirements. While a minimal Squeak 
image would free us up considerably, legally and technologically, 
socially I think my Requirement/Encouragement should be our position.

My 2 centavos. :)

Jimmie Houchin


[snip]