> And can I just point out again that the FSF itself has recognized that
> the GPL's "linking" clauses easily become broken outside a
> "compile-link-deliver" C/Unix style paradigm, and is trying to fix
> them, but hasn't figured out yet how to generalize things properly?

Recent drafts circulated by FSF reflect, perhaps, that FSF considers GPL 
to be broken only to the extent linking isn't clear enough to preclude, 
say, DLL's.  They are, if anything, more, not less, authoritarian in 
this regard.

> Given that fact, I don't think you can draw conclusions like Andrew
> did about how evilly authoritarian the GPL is on the basis of how it
> relates to Squeak -- it is *admittedly* somewhat broken with regards
> to things like Squeak because of a paradigm clash.  (Remember, "GNU"
> itself was originally supposed to be an operating system which
> replaced and duplicated the functions of Unix...)

No guessing is necessary here.  At the request of various folks on this 
list, I personally contacted RMS to seek clarification of his views.  He 
was unequivocal.  He was disinterested that Squeak can't work with GPL, 
because he could care less about "open software," his interest is in 
what he calls to be "free," meaning GPL'd, software.  He would be fine, 
so long as Squeak were relicensed GPL, but otherwise, that's all there 
is, there ain't no more.  And, regarding whether he considered GPL to be 
broken as a result, he manifest only a concern that what he told me was 
ambiguous under the current language.

Don't take my word for it, of course.  Though I am a lawyer, I can offer 
you no legal advice on this listserv.  Use your common sense and good 
judgment.  But before you do any act presuming GPL and Squeak (or any 
monolithic image software) are compatible, please do contact legal 
counsel to advise you as to your legal rights to do so.

In the meanwhile, be mindful that the characterizations I have given 
about the GPL as applied to monolithic image software were not mine, but 
that of RMS.