Hi Andreas, I am not a lawyer but as far as I understand this topic, no license means nobody can use the code at all, which contradicts the fact of having it in a public repository (and you being perfectly happy of people using it). Can you please clarify the license situation of those projects?
Best regards, Johan On 30 Aug 2010, at 00:00, Andreas Raab wrote: > As you can see, when I mean to put code under the MIT license, I try to state > that by including a copy of the license on the front page of the repository > as well as setting the license field. Contrary to, for example, the following > repositories: > > http://www.squeaksource.com/ar.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakSSL.html > http://www.squeaksource.com/WebClient.html > > which are not (or not yet) under MIT. Obviously, I'm trying to be as clear as > possible on these matters, which is why I was pointing out that your > repository incorrectly claims that the version of WebClient in it is LGPLv2. > I'm surprised (and shocked) that apparently nobody in Pharo even tries to > find out what the license status for WebClient is. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
