> Hello Squeakers,
> > As an author of AIDA/Web (http://www.eranova.si/aida/) I
> like to clarify a bit the license issues mentioned in this
> thread.
> > To be honest, I just didn't care about those license
> problems too much and AIDA was released under for me in that
> moment most appropriate license. Also, here we don't
> complicate so much about licensing issues so I really need
> help from you o find a more appropriate license.
> > My intention with AIDA is to help spread Smalltalk in web
> applications and on the other side that community help me
> developing AIDA further. We all can then make money
> providing services and custom solutions based on AIDA. > > Therefore, I'm willing to change license to be more lawyer
> proof :))
> > Please help me find such a license. Can we agree for a
> common license for all Smalltalk OS projects? Should I start
> with LGPL?

Three ways to go:

BSD-based:

Your product is so similar in nature to the Apache server, and Apache's license is so reasonable, that it rates to be a good fit.  http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt  I note that this license (the so-called "old-BSD" license retains the "advertising clause" which RMS considers to be a "bad thing."  He does approve of the far simpler "new BSD" license http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.3/COPYRIGHT5.html, which would serve just as well.

Squeak-L:

An alternative license, which is also highly liberal and decidedly Smalltalk friendly, is the Squeak license.  http://www.squeak.org/license.html, removing the Apple-specific terminology, since your product is not bound by Apple code at its base.  Squeak-L, like Mozilla and Apple's Open Source license, requires publication of source code to modifications, regardless of whether the changes have been distributed to others.  

However, Squeak-L is probably not compatible with GPL code, while BSD or the apache licenses certainly are.

IMHO, until the community settles around a Smalltalk- (image-) based license (essentially GPL, solving the linking issues), BSD is probably more than adequate.  A fair number of us (myself included) affirmatively like the requirement to publish source to modifications, although RMS considers such a limitation to make software "unfree."

Other licenses:

LGPL may well be adequate for these purposes.  I will need to look at it with this question in mind, but it may well serve the purpose.  I'll take another look and see if anything there is hurtful to a Smalltalk "in-image" product.


Disclaimer:  Please note that I offer only general information and am not in a position, one way or the other, to offer legal advises for your particular purposes.  Sound legal advice requires a detailed understanding of the particular facts of your project, and the application of the law to those facts, which I have not undertaken here.  If you require legal advice, you should rely on the advice of counsel you have retained for that purpose.