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(a)fedoraproject.org>