At 01:37 PM 11/12/2001 +1000, you wrote:
>You have argued below that releasing squeak code under the GPL would
>cause problems; that the "GPL has restrictions for monolithic images
>that make it unworkable for Smalltalk systems."
>
>Could you or someone else give a list of these problems that I could use
>as a basis for suggesting a better license to the powers that be?

Andrew has, I thought, made this plain, but perhaps a different
example would be helpful.

Supposing I took a piece of GPL code and combined it with a piece
of (say) proprietary code that forbids source redistribution.
"Combine" is the interesting word -- for the sake of this example,
I am "linking" to combine the two pieces of code.

Can I release the resulting binary?  If I do, GPL says I must make
source available to ALL code linked (combined) into the binary; this
would include the proprietary code whose license forbids redistribution.
Therefore, if I release the code, I must violate (at least) one license,
hence I cannot legally release the code.

I do not know the terms of the Squeak license in detail, but no doubt
the conundrum is similar to this one.  In particular, consider this
clause from the GPL:

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
     stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
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.
...

IN PARTICULAR, it dictates the terms for the license on the
redistributed code (*THIS* license), and that is not the same
license as the current Squeak license.  Thus, for instance,
if I distributed source code according to some license just
like the GPL except that it contained the additional provision
that users send me a postcard before installing the software,
that software could not (pedantically, legally) be combined
with plain GPL and distributed, because which license would
govern? -- each says *TERMS OF THIS LICENSE*, yet the two licenses
are different (must recipients of the combined work send me a
postcard, or not?)

I don't think it's got much to do with all the noise about
"freedom" or not -- I think that the two licenses are simply
legally incompatible (though IANAL).



David Chase
chase at naturalbridge.com
drchase at alumni.rice.edu
chase at world.std.com