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

Jimmie Houchin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Göran,
> 
> I am not trying to ruffle any feathers or get you send me a can of 
> Swedish fish. ;)

No, I didn't think you were either! And hey! That rott... I mean
fermented fish is good for you! ;-)

> 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.

Probably so yes.

> >>>>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. :)

Yes. Oh, and btw - we already have IanSqueakL too. ;-)

But I take comfort in the observations of Andreas - note though that if
the standard libraries of Squeak (packages) are under a big variety of
licenses it will almost make it impossible for business people to figure
out what the rules are.

regards, Göran