LGPL and SqueakMap
Nevin Pratt
nevin at smalltalkpro.com
Tue Dec 24 05:51:09 UTC 2002
Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
>
>
>> In Objective-C, an external library is roughly analagous to a
>> Smalltalk change set.
>
>
> Rough analogies are a dangerous way to proceed when we are discussing
> legal consequences of software development.
Granted. And a very good point.
> Ultimately, the mode of distribution of the initial source of viral
> code is not meaningful or useful in analyzing the difficulties of the
> LGPL in Squeak. Loading the code into a monolithic image, we now have
> a mix of code in that image, and the question is how much of the image
> becomes virally infected thereby.
>
> This is the fundamental difference between Objective-C code and
> Smalltalk with respect to licensing.
Don't agree. While I agree that the monolithic image blurs the
distinction between development time and runtime (because it's *all*
runtime with Smalltalk), during runtime the concept of the "object
space" from the point of view of the executing program is identical
between Objective-C and Smalltalk, and their respective capabilities are
very close to being identical.
What I perceive to be your interpretation of GPL and LGPL is that for
Smalltalk image-based code, there is no difference between those two
licenses. I could be mistaken, but that is the impression that I get
that you are saying. And, that's what I don't agree with. There is a
difference between those two licenses for Smalltalk image-based code.
No, I don't believe I can accurately illucidate the boundaries and
differences between those two licenses for Smalltalk image-based code,
but I firmly believe those two licenses have differences for Smalltalk
image-based code (for that matter, not every Smalltalk implementation is
image-based: ObjectStudio and SmallScript being notable exceptions).
And I also feel that you are correct in raising the flags that you have
raised. But I feel that your interpretation that there is no difference
between those two licenses for Smalltalk image-based code to be an
overreaction, and inaccurate. Of course, I could also be
misunderstanding what you are saying, too.
In regards to the FSF clearing up the confusion, probably a simple
question of "what is the difference between GPL and LGPL licenses in
regards to Smalltalk image-based code" would suffice. I'm inclined to
think that their position for GPL will be that the entire image would
need to be GPL'd. But their position for LGPL will be something a bit
less restrictive, whatever that happens to be. And it is that
difference that would indicate the boundaries.
Nevin
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|