<ESUG> A little advertisement:
Cincom pushed the idea to have a lawyer at ESUG to explain such kind of
points, there will be a panel with Julian Fitzel, Bert Freudenberg so
we will all learn. Prepare your questions.
</ESUG>
On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Johan Brichau wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
