On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 02:20:27PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 02:16:03PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > > > 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? > > Everything the Scratch team at MIT has written is, yes. The other Squeak > code in the Scratch image is covered under the MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses > as described at http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ I don't see any problem here. I would note that the MIT code is apparently GPLv2+ rather than GPLv2. - RF _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal