Thanks Aaron --

Better than I could have said!

Cheers,

Alan

------

At 3:19 PM -0600 11/6/02, Aaron J Reichow wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, [iso-8859-1] German S. Arduino wrote:
>
>>  Thanks by your response Alan, but at the same time
>>  sorry because I¥m note sure of well understand what
>>  you are saying (I'm from Argentina and my mother
>>  language is spanish).
>>
>>  Con you explain me a bit more why the Squeak license
>>  is better than GPL license?
>
>I know this was directed specifically at Alan, but:
>
>Alan (and others, including myself) believes that the Squeak License is
>superior to the GPL for reasons similar to the belief that the BSD license
>or the LGPL is superior to the GPL: because it is a lot more "Free" than
>the GPL, fewer restrictions.  That is, the GPL binds that anything that
>bases, derives or extends itself on your GPL'd project must also be under
>the GPL.  Even if your project was a library, and I wanted to link to it
>just to use a few functions, my project would also have to be under the
>GPL.  Regardless of whether or not you like this, it is a restriction, and
>it can introduce problems.  If Squeak was under the GPL, anything you
>would write in it would be forcibly under the GPL, partially because of
>the the GPL is so fascist and partially because of the nature of the
>Smalltalk language.
>
>Surely there are other issues, which Alan or others may pipe in with.
>
>I always preferred the open-by-default culture of Smalltalk.  Since
>everything is pretty easily decompiled, there's been a long tradition of
>openness in Smalltalk, predating the current open source movement.  In
>Smalltalk, we don't need a movement like this, because it's been a part of
>our culture for 30 years.
>
>Regards.
>Aaron


--