On Saturday, November 10, 2001, at 10:20  PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:

> On Saturday 10 November 2001 18:29, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> it's quite true, afaict, that we *can't* use the GPL with Squeak, and
>> that it's highly likely that we couldn't without completely
>> unreasonable effort.
>
> I am not sure about that. The SqueakL says:
>
>                You may distribute and sublicense such
>                Modified Software only under the terms of a valid,
>                binding license that makes no representations or
>                warranties on behalf of Apple, and is no less protective
>                of Apple and Apple's rights than this License.
>
> While GPLv2 says in 2.b:
>
>                You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
>                that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
>                Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole
>                at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
>                this License.
>
> So if you can come up with a new license that is as protective of Apple
> as SqueakL and include the terms of GPLv2 it seems you could release
> the bundle containing Squeak and GPLed software. Unless "under the
> terms of this License" == "this License". Not that I would ever do such
> a thing myself, however... and this should not be take as legal advice
> outside the Antartic continent.

This has been hashed out in great depth in prior threads.  No license 
can be as protective of Apple and retain GPL-compatible.  The analysis 
is non-trivial and complex, and was vetted with FSF before we arrived at 
the nihilistic conclusion that there is no way to resolve it.  I won't 
review the analysis here, but rather refer Lex to the prior threads and 
remind him that GPL also says:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the 
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the 
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to 
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions 
on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not 
responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

Thus, we must be AS protective of Apple and cannot add terms.  Nobody 
who hasn't negotiated a finding of GPL-compatibility with FSF can 
appreciate how unlikely finding a solution would be.

But that really isn't the biggest problem -- the biggest problem is that 
a GPL'd Squeak would preclude the creation of original, non-derived 
software in Smalltalk, and its subsequent distribution, unless the 
program was also GPL'd.

This is unworkable.  Even FSF doesn't pretend otherwise.  If gcc and the 
GNU C libraries were arranged so that all programs generated and using 
them had to be GPL'd, nobody would use the tools.  If you couldn't run 
any proprietary software on a Unix machine that incidentally includes 
GPL'd software, nobody would use the system.  This is why FSF has not 
abandoned the LGPL, and why the GPL has a program permitting 
distribution of GPL software side-by-side with independent non-GPL 
software.

GPL cannot work with a monolithic image, unless you were to dictate that 
all Smalltalk code thereby developed was also GPL'd.  This is why for 
Smalltalk, GPL cannot be considered free, or even practical.