<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