>>after get burned during some years about the license of Squeak.
>>What do you think to force people to put a license on projects on squeaksource?
>>I have the impression that it would avoid bad situation in the future.
>>Even if I could live with it like it is too. This is just that we just wait to get bitten...
The problem is that there are thousands of projects without a license.
Additionally, since the "License" field was added to SqueakSource
relatively late it cannot be easily added anymore.
> There is an HTML parser on SS with a non-compete clause in its license. There are many other projects on SS that either have no explicit license or are licensed in a non-OSI-approved manner. I have thought of complaining in the past, but nowhere on SS (at least nowhere I could find) does it say that code uploaded to it must be open source; in fact, the site doesn't seem to even mention "open source" at all. If SS is supposed to be the Google Code or Source Forge of the Smalltalk community, only accepting open source code, it should be upfront about it; likewise if it is open to all Smalltalk code, including proprietary.
SqueakSource is more like GitHub. There are various commercial and
proprietary projects hosted there, some of them you can't even see as
you lack the required permissions. There is no need for code to be
open source to store it on SqueakSource.
Lukas
--
Lukas Renggli
www.lukas-renggli.ch
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Locked
