On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 02:13:08PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > 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? So everything MIT has written here is what is licensed under GPLv2? - RF _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
