On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 09:52:07AM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote: > Matthew, > Was this email just informational, or is there a question in that? :) Whoops -- it was a draft I started writing which was _going_ to have a question in it, which is: is this explanation of the licensing okay for Fedora? And the missing background is: the Scratch image is derived from the Squeak 2.8 image (which is separate from the Squeak VM, which is yet another thing). Scratch explains that derivation here on their source code page <http://info.scratch.mit.edu/Source_Code>, which says: Scratch is built on a modified Squeak 2.8 image. That version of Squeak is documented in two books: "Squeak: Object-Oriented Design with Multimedia Applications" by Mark Guzdial and "Squeak: Open Personal Computing and Multimedia" edited by Mark Guzdial and Kim Rose. To learn more about Squeak, including how to use the Squeak environment to explore the source code, see www.squeak.org. Since Scratch simply uses a stock Squeak virtual machine, we are not distributing the Squeak virtual machine source code. Both the source code and pre-compiled binaries for the Squeak virtual machine are available at www.squeakvm.org. The non-Scratch portion of the Squeak image file is distributed under the Squeak License. Which parts of the image file are Squeak and which are Scratch? The rule is that classes that appear in the original Squeak 2.8 image are covered by the Squeak license while all code in the remaining classes is covered by the license under which the Scratch package was released. The Scratch classes are easy to find in practice: nearly all of them appear in the class categories starting with "Scratch-". That original Squeak image is a mix of MIT and Apache 2.0 license. My concern is whether the final, combined image must be under the GPL v2 license. My non-lawyer understanding is that it must, because it's certainly not a case of "mere aggregation". But upstream's explanation is that it's okay. I asked for further clarification on the restriction on GPL v3, because it's my understanding that the patent clauses already existing in the Apache license are precisely why the GPL v2 isn't compatible. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
