Debian and SqueakL revisited again...(was Re: Debian source package)

goran.hultgren at bluefish.se goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Wed Oct 31 08:59:10 UTC 2001


"Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2001, at 01:26  PM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se 
> wrote:
> 
> >> One thing I know is that LGPL allows linking with non-LGPL programs, 
> >> but
> >> GPL does not.  It's a good thing that GNU libc (the one that Linux 
> >> uses)
> >> is LGPL, because if it was GPL it would be illegal to compile non-GNU C
> >> programs on Linux!  It's unclear where Squeak images would fall here --
> >> is loading Smalltalk code into Squeak "linking", or is it making a
> >> derivative of the base image?  Blah, let's be happy we're not using one
> >> of these licenses and so don't have to decide.  :)
> >
> > The question on how the image works in this is very much open I guess.
> 
> Not open in practice, given RMS' construction of the GPL.  GPL's 
> interaction with a monolithic image is completely viral in his view.

Yes, but what about dynamically (=at startup time) "linking in" .pr or
other ImageSegments, or for example loading a changeset of source?
Loading a changeset at startup makes it more or less a pure interpreter,
right? And those "get away with it" today - I mean you can write GPL
programs in interpreted languages even if the interpreter is not GPLed.

I agree fully though that a "loaded and shipped" image is probably
totally out of the question - I wasn't clear on that point.

(I am trying to compare this to for example classloading in Java during
runtime)

> Indeed, one could theoretically litigate the "open" question, at great 
> cost and expense.  The upside of being right is you get to use the 
> software for free.  The downside of being wrong is you are liable under 
> the Copyright Act for actual damages, statutory damages (from $500 to 
> $50K, within the jury's unreviewable discretion), penalties for willful 
> damages, perhaps (up to $100K, within the judge or jury's discretion), 
> and significantly, an award of attorney fees.
> 
> One would be insane to risk litigating that issue merely because it is 
> "very much open," given that the cost of licensing comparable software 
> is tiny compared to the liability downside, even discounted by the 
> reasonable expectation of success.

Yes, of course. I agree on that. I am just curious...

regards, Göran




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list