3 ms·

Good article. One small quibble: Pharo and Squeak's licensing are identical, so "clearer licensing" isn't a reason to choose one over the other. That said, Pha

• sigzero 16y ago
  I think the Squeak license changed with version 4.0...originally it was not the MIT one. Edit: In looking into the history, it seems the license has changed several times.
  • cwp 16y ago
    That's right. It took a major effort to track down all the contributors (including Apple and Disney!) and get them to sign a relicensing agreement. Both Pharo and Squeak include relicensed code, and both Pharo and Squeak require that all new contributions be made under the MIT license. Claiming that Squeak has "unclear licensing" is just FUD.
    • randallsquared 16y ago
      Or, since Squeak 4.0 is the newest version according to their download page, maybe, just maybe, it was a simple mistake, rather than FUD. :)
• gecko 16y ago
  It's even more nuanced than that: the Squeak project took the time to actually do a full hunt for all of the old contributors, figured out who they were, rewrote their code when necessary, and got signed legal agreements authorizing the relicensing of their code under the MIT license. The Pharo project took a more practical but somewhat more cavalier approach without the lawyers and signatories. So there is actually the chance, though I want to emphasize very strongly a ridiculously tiny chance, that something in Pharo is incorrectly licensed at this point, whereas Squeak is legally unquestionably fully MIT licensed. That said, unless you wear a tinfoil hat, I cannot imagine anyone seriously not using Pharo due to the above.