On 8/30/2010 1:40 AM, Johan Brichau wrote:
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?
The license situation is that the code that's there has not been made available with a specific license yet. I use that as a vehicle to allow people to check things out, to try stuff and to experiment with it while I'm developing the code and am not willing to give up control. If you feel you do need a license during that period (which is perfectly reasonable) you can always contact and ask me and I'll be more than happy to grant you a non-transferable license that restricts source redistribution but is otherwise completely free for your use (commercial or otherwise). The point isn't to keep people from trying things out, the point is to bring development to a point where I'm happy to release it in the chosen form to the general public. Cheers, - Andreas
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.