On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 01:02:44PM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote: > > 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. > If the case is just one where the Scratch binary depends on the Squeak > VM to run, but they are separate code bases, there should be no issue. > Is that the situation? It sounds like it from the MIT explanation, but, no. The Scratch binary is itself derived from the Squeak image (which is a separate thing from the Squeak VM). In that image, there are classes begining with "Scratch-", which are the new Scratch code and licensed under the GPL v2. There is also original Squeak code, under a combination of MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses. The question basically comes down to: is distributing that together okay under the GPL v2? -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
