From: "Bruce Badger" <bwbadger@gmail.com>
To: "Dale K. Henrichs" <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com>
Cc: "esug-list@lists.esug.org Members" <esug-list@lists.esug.org>, "St��phane Ducasse" <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 4:53:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Esug-list] About Sport licenses

Dale,

I think that would be fine too.

One of the aims of Sport is to be the ubiquitous surrogate for missing standardisation between dialects, and MIT does appear to be a better licensee if the objective is ubiquity.

I think I'm the only author of the GemStone port, but perhaps you know of others and perhaps you've added some bits too? :-)

So if you are sure that you know all contributors to GemStone Sport then we can say that it will join the Pharo port under the MIT license.

The agreed forum for Sport was c.l.s so we should announce any proposed license changes there too.

Bruce

On 20 July 2013 12:39, Dale K. Henrichs <dale.henrichs@gemtalksystems.com> wrote:

Bruce,

How about MIT for the GemStone implementation?

Dale

---

From: "Bruce Badger" <bwbadger@gmail.com>
To: "St��phane Ducasse" <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>
Cc: "esug-list@lists.esug.org Members" <esug-list@lists.esug.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 1:08:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Esug-list] About Sport licenses

Yes indeed.  Looking at the thread I think everyone is happy with MIT so I would suggest going with just that for the Pharo implementation of Sport rather than using a dual license.

Bruce

On 20 July 2013 08:13, St��phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:

Thanks you all.
This is excellent so I think that Sport can be relicensed and this is a good news.

Stef

On Jul 18, 2013, at 6:04 PM, Philippe Marschall <philippe.marschall@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:19 PM, St��phane Ducasse
> <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
>> Hi Sport contributors
>>
>> Today while browsing the seaside repository I saw  that there is a
>> Seaside30LGPL and I was puzzled. I looked and I saw that this is because it
>> uses Sport and Sport is licensed under
>> LGPL (probably the only packages in mainstream Smalltalk). I asked Bruce if
>> Sport could be relicensed or have a dual license MIT/LGPL here is his
>> answer:
>>
>> Steph,
>>
>> We've had this discussion before, and as before I'm fine with this in
>> principle but it's not me alone to say.  Sport for different dialects was
>> written by different people.
>>
>> Sent from my phone.  Please forgive brevity.
>>
>> So if you participated to Sport can you reply to this mail so that we can
>> get a dual license LGPL/MIT.
>
> Should I ever have contributed I agree to dual- or relicensing.
>
> Cheers
> Philippe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esug-list mailing list
> Esug-list@lists.esug.org
> http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org


_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org

--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

_______________________________________________
Esug-list mailing list
Esug-list@lists.esug.org
http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org

--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/