> Andrew,
> > I wasn't aware about the license incompatibility (and frankly, I don't
> understand the problem; IMHO the license covers only the > source code, not
> the objects loaded into an image which might be like > compiling a C program).

I disagree with this distinction that you draw, although I agree that the problem may be raised more by RMS' interpretation of the GPL than what the GPL actually says.

> Whatever, all I want is that if anybody modifies or extends > my code, I want
> that new code.  In exchange, he/she may do anything (using, copying,
> selling) with that code, as can I.  In addition, I want to > read my name in
> the source code.  I even don't care whether that other person > will open the
> source code or not.

You get that with SqueakL.  You *DON'T* get that with GPL, which doesn't require providing you with updates unless: (1) they decide to distribute their updates; and (2) you know about it and then ask them for it.  There are some limitations in SqueakL, of course, that are artifacts of the old Apple license.  Some of them can ultimately be shed (with the abandonment of the bitmap NewYork font), but others (the export rules) may be legated.

At any rate, my recommendation is to go with Squeak-L.  (Or if you want something truly free, license it under BSD -- which is compatible both with GPL and with Squeak-L, although it doesn't *REQUIRE* publishing updates, whether distributed or not).