Swazoo license
Locked
12
12
 
|
Dear Swazooers,
Recently a big debate is going on Squeak mailing list about what is a real Swazoo license [1]. Therefore we need to finally decide on the license, because Swazoo is now near the original goal: to be a web server of choice for all Smalltalks. It is now ported on VW, Squeak, Dolphin, Gemstone and GNU Smalltalk and used with both Seaside and Aida web frameworks. But specially because of Seasiders a clear license is needed. Swazoo is currently in trouble because it is somehow licensed as LGPL and Seasiders wants MIT, together with most of Squeak community. I don't remember actually if we ever seriously defined license as LGPL (it seems that LGPL is set out of popularity more that anything else), but it was set on SqueakForge and mentioned in one mail from 2000. So what to do? I would simply decide to license it as MIT and problem solved. Author rights are preserved, Squeakers and Seasiders satisfied. A win for whole Smalltalk community. What do you think, shall we license it as MIT? Best regards JAnko [1]http://www.nabble.com/-squeak-dev--Swazoo---LGPL-or-MIT--td16131213.html -- Janko Mivšek Svetovalec za informatiko Eranova d.o.o. Ljubljana, Slovenija www.eranova.si tel: 01 514 22 55 faks: 01 514 22 56 gsm: 031 674 565 |
|
|
2008/3/24, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>:
> Dear Swazooers, > > Recently a big debate is going on Squeak mailing list about what is a > real Swazoo license [1]. Therefore we need to finally decide on the > license, because Swazoo is now near the original goal: to be a web > server of choice for all Smalltalks. It is now ported on VW, Squeak, > Dolphin, Gemstone and GNU Smalltalk and used with both Seaside and Aida > web frameworks. But specially because of Seasiders a clear license is > needed. > > Swazoo is currently in trouble because it is somehow licensed as LGPL > and Seasiders wants MIT, Sorry but this is not true like that. It's true that we prefer MIT but we do not "want" or require it to be. What we want it a clear licensing situation, that is: - what license is Swazoo? - what license does our code that interfaces with Swazoo need to be If the answer to both questions is LGPL that is ok for us. We'd have to move the code to a different repository but that's not really a problem. If the answer is "duh, we dunno, IANAL, kinda depends who you ask", that is a problem for us. Cheers Philippe > together with most of Squeak community. I don't > remember actually if we ever seriously defined license as LGPL (it seems > that LGPL is set out of popularity more that anything else), but it was > set on SqueakForge and mentioned in one mail from 2000. So what to do? I > would simply decide to license it as MIT and problem solved. Author > rights are preserved, Squeakers and Seasiders satisfied. A win for > whole Smalltalk community. > > What do you think, shall we license it as MIT? > > Best regards > JAnko > > [1]http://www.nabble.com/-squeak-dev--Swazoo---LGPL-or-MIT--td16131213.html > > > > > -- > Janko Mivšek > Svetovalec za informatiko > Eranova d.o.o. > Ljubljana, Slovenija > www.eranova.si > tel: 01 514 22 55 > faks: 01 514 22 56 > gsm: 031 674 565 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Swazoo-devel mailing list > [hidden email] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel > |
|
|
Hi Philippe,
I wrote this "want" from Seasiders (and from Squeakers) in broader terms, more like "wish", but not "require". This wish is obvious and therefore I think we should listen. And that's my intent with a call for Swazooers, first to define license at all and second, to be licensed as MIT, so that both MIT and LGPL communities can use it. From my viewpoint a Swazoo is not yet actually licensed and those licenses around are set more by popularity and viewpoint of those who set it that anything else. That's because I don't remember that we the original authors ever talked about which license to set. What I would propose now is to publish a new version 3.0 with a clear license while for older versions let it stay license as "undecided". I also propose that we change all setups (SqueakMap, SourceForge), around to undecided. Exception of this can be Swazoo 2.x which continues Bruce's code. If he says his contribution is LGPL, then 2.x seems to be set as LGPL. Best regads JAnko Philippe Marschall wrote: > 2008/3/24, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>: >> Dear Swazooers, >> >> Recently a big debate is going on Squeak mailing list about what is a >> real Swazoo license [1]. Therefore we need to finally decide on the >> license, because Swazoo is now near the original goal: to be a web >> server of choice for all Smalltalks. It is now ported on VW, Squeak, >> Dolphin, Gemstone and GNU Smalltalk and used with both Seaside and Aida >> web frameworks. But specially because of Seasiders a clear license is >> needed. >> >> Swazoo is currently in trouble because it is somehow licensed as LGPL >> and Seasiders wants MIT, > > Sorry but this is not true like that. It's true that we prefer MIT but > we do not "want" or require it to be. What we want it a clear > licensing situation, that is: > - what license is Swazoo? > - what license does our code that interfaces with Swazoo need to be > If the answer to both questions is LGPL that is ok for us. We'd have > to move the code to a different repository but that's not really a > problem. If the answer is "duh, we dunno, IANAL, kinda depends who you > ask", that is a problem for us. > > Cheers > Philippe > >> together with most of Squeak community. I don't >> remember actually if we ever seriously defined license as LGPL (it seems >> that LGPL is set out of popularity more that anything else), but it was >> set on SqueakForge and mentioned in one mail from 2000. So what to do? I >> would simply decide to license it as MIT and problem solved. Author >> rights are preserved, Squeakers and Seasiders satisfied. A win for >> whole Smalltalk community. >> >> What do you think, shall we license it as MIT? >> >> Best regards >> JAnko >> >> [1]http://www.nabble.com/-squeak-dev--Swazoo---LGPL-or-MIT--td16131213.html >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Janko Mivšek >> Svetovalec za informatiko >> Eranova d.o.o. >> Ljubljana, Slovenija >> www.eranova.si >> tel: 01 514 22 55 >> faks: 01 514 22 56 >> gsm: 031 674 565 >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft >> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Swazoo-devel mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Swazoo-devel mailing list > [hidden email] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel -- Janko Mivšek Svetovalec za informatiko Eranova d.o.o. Ljubljana, Slovenija www.eranova.si tel: 01 514 22 55 faks: 01 514 22 56 gsm: 031 674 565 |
|
|
>>>>> "Janko" == Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> writes:
Janko> What I would propose now is to publish a new version 3.0 with a clear Janko> license while for older versions let it stay license as "undecided". I Janko> also propose that we change all setups (SqueakMap, SourceForge), around Janko> to undecided. Exception of this can be Swazoo 2.x which continues Janko> Bruce's code. If he says his contribution is LGPL, then 2.x seems to be Janko> set as LGPL. I support this effort. Thank you. Clear licenses are mandatory to US commercial acceptance. Industry in America has more lawyers than engineers, it seems. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! |
|
|
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Dear Swazooers,
Let me announce the outcome of mentioned debate [1] and a silent diplomacy we original authors and later contributors have in past days and now it is a time to continue it again in public. 1. Swazoo is clearly licensed as LGPL from start until now. That this was until now not clear is that I was busy coding on Camp Smalltalk 2000 while other guys had a debate about license, but if I could, I would also agree then on LGPL. So there is no doubt, a license was really set as LGPL from the start. 2. About relicensing Swazoo to MIT, current proposal is to detach two branches (Bruce's one which is now named Hyper and main Swazoo one) and having different licenses for each. On that point we are currently with a debate and we'd like to go in public now. For start let me invite Bruce and Ken first to describe a current proposal in more details. Best regards Janko Janko Mivšek wrote: > Dear Swazooers, > > Recently a big debate is going on Squeak mailing list about what is a > real Swazoo license [1]. Therefore we need to finally decide on the > license, because Swazoo is now near the original goal: to be a web > server of choice for all Smalltalks. It is now ported on VW, Squeak, > Dolphin, Gemstone and GNU Smalltalk and used with both Seaside and Aida > web frameworks. But specially because of Seasiders a clear license is > needed. > > Swazoo is currently in trouble because it is somehow licensed as LGPL > and Seasiders wants MIT, together with most of Squeak community. I don't > remember actually if we ever seriously defined license as LGPL (it seems > that LGPL is set out of popularity more that anything else), but it was > set on SqueakForge and mentioned in one mail from 2000. So what to do? I > would simply decide to license it as MIT and problem solved. Author > rights are preserved, Squeakers and Seasiders satisfied. A win for > whole Smalltalk community. > > What do you think, shall we license it as MIT? > > Best regards > JAnko > > [1]http://www.nabble.com/-squeak-dev--Swazoo---LGPL-or-MIT--td16131213.html > > > > -- Janko Mivšek Svetovalec za informatiko Eranova d.o.o. Ljubljana, Slovenija www.eranova.si tel: 01 514 22 55 faks: 01 514 22 56 gsm: 031 674 565 |
|
|
All,
I think it would be useful to understand why we are talking about changes to the license for Swazoo. What are the motivations for even considering a change? All the best, Bruce -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
|
|
Hi Bruce and others,
Bruce Badger wrote: > I think it would be useful to understand why we are talking about > changes to the license for Swazoo. > > What are the motivations for even considering a change? Main motivation is acceptance of Swazoo to the broadest Smalltalk community to achieve our goal we set when Swazoo was born: to become a web server of choice for all Smalltalk dialects. Swazoo is now on Squeak, GNU Smalltalk, VisualWorks, Gemstone, Dolphin, so we are near that goal. The problem arises in Squeak and Seaside community which are (mostly from historical reasons) very pro-MIT and they like to encourage all code as MIT to be Squeak friendly. I also see that in those communities is a common wisdom that: MIT code can be used from LGPL code LGPL code cannot be used from MIT code. I repeat, this is a common wisdom, even that Paolo Bonzini showed clearly that LGPL code can be used from MIT if used from other package. But experience shows, that a common wisdom is hard to change and it is better to adopt, specially if you don't loose anything, which is from my viewpoint in this case. LGPL's "share modification" clause looks like something we loose, but in reality and context of Smalltalk I'm sure we wont. But please let we be careful not to start another license "war" as we had so many recently and without much results, let we just debate on a question, should we go to MIT or not. Best regards JAnko -- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si |
|
|
All,
Janko recalled some things he understood Paolo Bonzini to have said about the LGPL. Janko's recollection did not match my own, so I asked Paolo to express his view. He asked me to post the following back to the list ... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paolo Bonzini <[hidden email]> Date: 8 Apr 2008 08:29 Subject: Re: Fwd: [Swazoo-devel] Swazoo license To: Bruce Badger <[hidden email]> > I also see that in those communities is a common wisdom that: > > MIT code can be used from LGPL code > LGPL code cannot be used from MIT code. > > I repeat, this is a common wisdom, even that Paolo Bonzini showed > clearly that LGPL code can be used from MIT if used from other package. > I'm not sure what Janko wants to say. But: 1) LGPL code from package A can obviously be used together with MIT code from package B, in an application that uses packages A and B (you will have to share modifications to A but not to B). This is the case when you use Seaside with Swazoo. In no way this implies that Seaside will be affected by the LGPL. 2) LGPL code from package A can be used *within* MIT code from package B, forming package A+B *which must be released under the LGPL*. This would be the case if for example the HTTPRequest class from Swazoo was lifted and used as is within Seaside. I admit that the line between "together with" and "within" is thin. But while it is thin enough that general rules are hard to establish, IMNSHO it is wide enough that specific cases can be evaluated quickly and without big problems. This is especially true for the LGPLv3 that explicitly considers subclassing to fall under option 1 rather than 2. Can you forward this to the list and CC me? Thanks! Paolo -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
Re: Fwd: Fwd: Swazoo license
|
|
>>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Badger <[hidden email]> writes:
Bruce> 2) LGPL code from package A can be used *within* MIT code from Bruce> package B, forming package A+B *which must be released under the Bruce> LGPL*. This would be the case if for example the HTTPRequest class Bruce> from Swazoo was lifted and used as is within Seaside. Or if we someday wanted to replace Kom with Swazoo in the Squeak core. If Kom is EOL'ed, that'd be a good thing to want to do. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! |
Re: Fwd: Fwd: Swazoo license
|
|
In reply to this post by Bruce Badger
2008/4/8, Bruce Badger <[hidden email]>:
> All, > > Janko recalled some things he understood Paolo Bonzini to have said > about the LGPL. Janko's recollection did not match my own, so I asked > Paolo to express his view. He asked me to post the following back to > the list ... > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Paolo Bonzini <[hidden email]> > Date: 8 Apr 2008 08:29 > Subject: Re: Fwd: [Swazoo-devel] Swazoo license > To: Bruce Badger <[hidden email]> > > > > I also see that in those communities is a common wisdom that: > > > > MIT code can be used from LGPL code > > LGPL code cannot be used from MIT code. > > > > I repeat, this is a common wisdom, even that Paolo Bonzini showed > > clearly that LGPL code can be used from MIT if used from other package. > > > > > I'm not sure what Janko wants to say. But: > > 1) LGPL code from package A can obviously be used together with MIT > code from package B, in an application that uses packages A and B (you > will have to share modifications to A but not to B). This is the case > when you use Seaside with Swazoo. In no way this implies that Seaside > will be affected by the LGPL. > > 2) LGPL code from package A can be used *within* MIT code from > package B, forming package A+B *which must be released under the > LGPL*. This would be the case if for example the HTTPRequest class > from Swazoo was lifted and used as is within Seaside. > > I admit that the line between "together with" and "within" is thin. Exactly. For example we have class extensions on Swazoo classes. In which case would they fall? How sure are you about this? This is the main point expressed against LGPL. It is not at all clear when you transition from case 1 to case 2. Cheers Philippe > But while it is thin enough that general rules are hard to establish, > IMNSHO it is wide enough that specific cases can be evaluated quickly > and without big problems. This is especially true for the LGPLv3 that > explicitly considers subclassing to fall under option 1 rather than 2. > > Can you forward this to the list and CC me? Thanks! > > Paolo > > > > -- > Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills > http://www.openskills.org/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference > Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m., > Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone > _______________________________________________ > Swazoo-devel mailing list > [hidden email] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bruce Badger
Hi all,
I think we better stop explaining an exact meaning of LGPL in context of Smalltalk, because past experience shows that we won't come much further, so let we rather turn to a practical meaning of relicensing to MIT. And that is a broadest possible acceptance of Swazoo in Smalltalk world. I'm sure that alone is strong enough reason to relicense. Without loosing our rights as authors and contributors. And this is what we should discuss first. Janko Bruce Badger wrote: > All, > > Janko recalled some things he understood Paolo Bonzini to have said > about the LGPL. Janko's recollection did not match my own, so I asked > Paolo to express his view. He asked me to post the following back to > the list ... > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Paolo Bonzini <[hidden email]> > Date: 8 Apr 2008 08:29 > Subject: Re: Fwd: [Swazoo-devel] Swazoo license > To: Bruce Badger <[hidden email]> > > >> I also see that in those communities is a common wisdom that: >> >> MIT code can be used from LGPL code >> LGPL code cannot be used from MIT code. >> >> I repeat, this is a common wisdom, even that Paolo Bonzini showed >> clearly that LGPL code can be used from MIT if used from other package. >> > > I'm not sure what Janko wants to say. But: > > 1) LGPL code from package A can obviously be used together with MIT > code from package B, in an application that uses packages A and B (you > will have to share modifications to A but not to B). This is the case > when you use Seaside with Swazoo. In no way this implies that Seaside > will be affected by the LGPL. > > 2) LGPL code from package A can be used *within* MIT code from > package B, forming package A+B *which must be released under the > LGPL*. This would be the case if for example the HTTPRequest class > from Swazoo was lifted and used as is within Seaside. > > I admit that the line between "together with" and "within" is thin. > But while it is thin enough that general rules are hard to establish, > IMNSHO it is wide enough that specific cases can be evaluated quickly > and without big problems. This is especially true for the LGPLv3 that > explicitly considers subclassing to fall under option 1 rather than 2. > > Can you forward this to the list and CC me? Thanks! > > Paolo > > -- Janko Mivšek Svetovalec za informatiko Eranova d.o.o. Ljubljana, Slovenija www.eranova.si tel: 01 514 22 55 faks: 01 514 22 56 gsm: 031 674 565 |
|
|
On 11/04/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think we better stop explaining an exact meaning of LGPL I don't think we should forbid any lines of discussion, Janko. -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
|
|
Bruce Badger wrote: > On 11/04/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote: >> I think we better stop explaining an exact meaning of LGPL > > I don't think we should forbid any lines of discussion, Janko. Agreed, but my point is to put them in a priority and let a first priority be a discussion about acceptance of Swazoo because of its license. It is now clear that MIT Swazoo will be accepted in broadest possible terms. And that is Swazoo's main goal from the start: to be a web server of choice for all Smalltalks. Janko |
|
|
On 11/04/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Bruce Badger wrote: > > I don't think we should forbid any lines of discussion, Janko. > > Agreed, but my point is to put them in a priority and let a first > priority be a discussion about acceptance of Swazoo because of its > license. It is now clear that MIT Swazoo will be accepted in broadest > possible terms. And that is Swazoo's main goal from the start: to be a > web server of choice for all Smalltalks. A high priority for me is that we use a share-alike license such that for the developers and users of Swazoo, freedoms are preserved. It was the use of a license that had these properties that lured me, and perhaps others, to Swazoo. Ubiquity is not a high priority for me and so is not a great incentive to re license my work, yet ubiquity (specifically within Squeak Smalltalk) appears to be the only benefit being put forward for the MIT license. Is ubiquity the only objective of re licensing? What about preservation of freedoms? Thanks, Bruce -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
|
|
Bruce Badger wrote:
>> > I don't think we should forbid any lines of discussion, Janko. >> >> Agreed, but my point is to put them in a priority and let a first >> priority be a discussion about acceptance of Swazoo because of its >> license. It is now clear that MIT Swazoo will be accepted in broadest >> possible terms. And that is Swazoo's main goal from the start: to be a >> web server of choice for all Smalltalks. > A high priority for me is that we use a share-alike license such that > for the developers and users of Swazoo, freedoms are preserved. It > was the use of a license that had these properties that lured me, and > perhaps others, to Swazoo. Others, that is most of fathers and contributors of Swazoo are for MIT. That's a result of contacting them and asking about to go to MIT. Let me quote one of them, Claus Gitinger (with his permission): "As I am not a legal guy, I cannot really be of much help here. I think, the MIT licence is ok - as far as I remember, its more liberal than the lgpl. I personally tent to not like licences which pollute the rest of the product - but that is (as far as I remember) also not the case with lgpl. So I am actually not very emotional about this decision. I trust you that you will take the right decision... " > Ubiquity is not a high priority for me and so is not a great incentive > to re license my work, yet ubiquity (specifically within Squeak > Smalltalk) appears to be the only benefit being put forward for the > MIT license. > > Is ubiquity the only objective of re licensing? What about > preservation of freedoms? Squeak community is currently the largest Smalltalk community and being there is sure important and also a goal for anyone who likes that his work is useful for broadest possible public. This is a community which praise contributions and specially freedom. What an interesting paradox: they like MIT just because of freedom. And freedom is preserved indirectly by dynamics of community, not layers. I therefore don't fear that my freedoms as an author won't be preserved. I'm sure it will be preserved to you other contributors too. Best regards JAnko -- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si |
|
|
On 14/04/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Others, that is most of fathers and contributors of Swazoo are for MIT. > That's a result of contacting them and asking about to go to MIT. Let me > quote one of them, Claus Gitinger (with his permission): It's hard to understand what Claus was meaning without seeing what was put to him. In the interests of openness, could you please also post the entire message (or series of messages) that you sent to Claus that led to his response? Thanks, Bruce -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
|
|
Bruce Badger wrote: > On 14/04/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Others, that is most of fathers and contributors of Swazoo are for MIT. >> That's a result of contacting them and asking about to go to MIT. Let me >> quote one of them, Claus Gitinger (with his permission): > > It's hard to understand what Claus was meaning without seeing what was > put to him. > > In the interests of openness, could you please also post the entire > message (or series of messages) that you sent to Claus that led to his > response? I sent roughly the same message with a final question as here on the mailing list: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=47E79D4B.7050803%40eranova.si&forum_name=swazoo-devel Best regards Janko -- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bruce Badger
Bruce,
What are the freedoms to which you refer, and how might they be compromised? Nicholas Bruce Badger wrote: > On 11/04/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Bruce Badger wrote: >> > I don't think we should forbid any lines of discussion, Janko. >> >> Agreed, but my point is to put them in a priority and let a first >> priority be a discussion about acceptance of Swazoo because of its >> license. It is now clear that MIT Swazoo will be accepted in broadest >> possible terms. And that is Swazoo's main goal from the start: to be a >> web server of choice for all Smalltalks. > > A high priority for me is that we use a share-alike license such that > for the developers and users of Swazoo, freedoms are preserved. It > was the use of a license that had these properties that lured me, and > perhaps others, to Swazoo. > > Ubiquity is not a high priority for me and so is not a great incentive > to re license my work, yet ubiquity (specifically within Squeak > Smalltalk) appears to be the only benefit being put forward for the > MIT license. > > Is ubiquity the only objective of re licensing? What about > preservation of freedoms? > > Thanks, > Bruce -- * Nicholas J Moore* |
|
|
On 14/04/2008, Nicholas Moore <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What are the freedoms to which you refer, and how might they be compromised? The essence of the idea is that any party receiving a copy of the code must agree to pass on exactly the same rights to others that they themselves received ... if and when they give a copy of the code on to others. ... hence the term share alike from 'share and share alike' The terms of the (L)GPL mean that preservation of freedoms is not something that is just hoped for, it is something which is required. BSD like licenses do not include terms which enforce the preservation of freedoms, and so permit the share-alike idea to be compromised. All the best, Bruce -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Dear all,
Another Smalltalk project goes to MIT license: Squeak EToys as part of OLPC project: http://blog.ofset.org/hilaire/index.php?post/2008/04/19/Squeak-Etoys-goes-MIT-license I see this as another indication for us to go to MIT to be part of such stories as OLPC in the future. Specially because most of Swazoo contributors are for MIT too and I'd really like to ask Bruce for the sake of Swazoo, majority of us Swazoo contributors and Smalltalk community in general to reconsider your opposition and to listen to us too. And our voice, voice of the majority is to go to MIT. Best regards Janko Janko Mivšek wrote: > > Bruce Badger wrote: >> On 14/04/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Others, that is most of fathers and contributors of Swazoo are for MIT. >>> That's a result of contacting them and asking about to go to MIT. Let me >>> quote one of them, Claus Gitinger (with his permission): >> It's hard to understand what Claus was meaning without seeing what was >> put to him. >> In the interests of openness, could you please also post the entire >> message (or series of messages) that you sent to Claus that led to his >> response? > I sent roughly the same message with a final question as here on the > mailing list: > > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=47E79D4B.7050803%40eranova.si&forum_name=swazoo-devel |
«
Return to Swazoo
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |