Squeak License

Simon Holgate sqk at simonholgate.org.uk
Thu Nov 7 12:47:08 UTC 2002


I have to agree with Cees that each of us are entitled to our own
opinion on the GPL. Without wanting to start an argument, I didn't think
that calling the GPL "fascist" was very helpful though.

All licenses seem to be viral to some extent in that they are latent in
the software we write and use. They may lie in wait and bite when most
unexpected. Anyone following developments with JPEG compression patents
   might feel that having the GPL (which is at least clear in it's
agenda)  is a good thing to ensure freedom of use.

Some people have also worried about the acquisition of apparently
royalty-free patents for aspects of OpenGL from SGI. It would certainly
have major implications for much of the fantastic work on Croquet if
royalties were suddenly charged.

There are of course other options. The Mozilla license, the Artistic
license. Each have pros and cons.

Just my thoughts,

		Simon


 >> Subject:
 >> Re: Squeak License
 >> From:
 >> cg at cdegroot.com (Cees de Groot)
 >> Date:
 >> 7 Nov 2002 09:19:52 +0100
 >> To:
 >> squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
 >>
 >>
 >>John M McIntosh <johnmci at mac.com> said:
 >>
 >>>Fonts are a non-issue search on squeak and accufonts
 >>>
 >>
 >>Well, there's still the license referring to the fonts, even if you
 >>remove the fonts themselves :-).
 >>
 >>(besides, I haven't had much luck with alternative fonts - either 
they don't
 >>look as good as the standard fonts or things like the left-arrow are 
missing).
 >>
 >>OP: Savannah, AFAIK, requires licenses compatible with the GPL (see 
gnu.org).
 >>You may want to put your code on Source Forge, which is less 
restrictive and
 >>offers mostly the same features (it's the same software under the 
hood, after
 >>all).
 >>
 >>Aaron: I don't think it is productive to see the Squeak license as 
superior
 >>to the GPL. They are different. The SqueakL has some known bugs, at 
least in
 >>that respect the GPL could be seen as superior. But first and 
foremost, they
 >>are different with different goals. The GPL ties you into a (political)
 >>community, it has a clear agenda. SqueakL doesn't share the agenda, 
but this
 >>fact doesn't make it superior.
 >>
 >>Furthermore, I don't think there's a lot of reason to be haughty about
 >>source sharing in Smalltalk. Sure, source sharing was common practice
 >>in most communities before the advent of shrink-wrapped binary-only
 >>software for microcomputers in the late '70s/early '80s, but to me (as
 >>a Smalltalk freshman) it seems that there is little appreciation for
 >>the legal framework created by the "Open Source movement" and little
 >>thought has been spent on licensing stuff.
 >>
 >>You may find it unimportant, but I feel that lots of people in the 
last couple
 >>of years spent a lot of time to work on their respective legal 
departments to
 >>have them allow either the publication or the use of software under open
 >>source licenses; the mere fact that lots of Smalltalk packages come 
without a
 >>license or have a license with some superfluous clauses that make it
 >>incompatible with the Open Source Definition may make it very hard 
for people
 >>in such organizations to either use or contribute to the code.
 >>
 >>This whole licensing business is boring stuff, but IMHO it's the oil that
 >>keeps a community worthy of our support running.
 >>
 >>(well, that's the only issue I have with your posting - I do agree 
with the
 >>tenet of it).
 >>





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list