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

[email protected] wrote:
> 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! ;-)

Well??????

Well, I got some nice HOT chiles from my part of the world which could 
warm things up this winter in Sweden. :)
I know, I know you would probably prefer to let the Mrs. handle that. ;)

I was telling my wife about the fish. She was thinking, what food from 
the US do people in other countries think is awful?

I told her I don't know. But if we have anything awful, it is probably 
awful because it is artificial and not real food. We have too much of 
that. :(


[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.

Andreas' observations were excellent.

I think the Require, Encourage and Permit descriptions I gave in a reply 
to Andreas would be good.

I think the social aspect of what we want/desire license wise will be a 
contributing factor to a decision. I think that if we had a Squeak 
Community License to move towards, that would show a clear licensing 
preferrence by the community. And a clear licensing path for contributions.

Just a thought.

Jimmie