Hi Joshua,

 >Stated another way, some are more viral than others.

I'd say that it's just that the "symptoms" are more obvious with some 
licenses than others ;). I must admit that I don't like the viral 
analogy. My email was really just to disagree with the "facist" 
terminology...

 >Also, the GPL is especially viral when applied to an image-based
 >system like Squeak.  You can compile something with GCC and the
 >resulting program need not be released under the GPL.  It would appear
 >that even Richard Stallman agrees that this is how it should be, since
 >he wrote both GCC and the GPL.  If Squeak were released under the GPL,
 >it would be virtually impossible to use it to develop non-GPLed
 >programs.

I'm not quite sure what the problem is still. With Squeak the whole of 
the source code is distributed and I give my permission, through the 
GPL, for anything I contribute to be distributed along with it. It does 
however mean that you cannot use my portion of the code for any program 
which does not include the source code WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. That is 
very important. It means that anyone can freely use my code without 
asking me unless used in a proprietary system. You can make money out of 
my code without asking me, as long as the source code is included. I 
think that is fair. I can also, at my discretion, relicense my code to 
you for use in proprietary programs. You just have to ask. No problem.

With Squeak, surely all that you have to do is not use any methods of 
classes covered by the GPL for a closed product without permission. I 
don't see what is wrong with that.

Is the issue that I could "hold someone to ransom" for a small piece of 
code in a complex program? I can see that might worry someone. But since 
I don't hold a patent on the code (under the GPL) you are free to 
reimplement any method or class without reference to my code. Is that a 
fair comment?

 >I haven't been following the JPEG situation, but what good can the GPL
 >do to ensure freedom of use in this case?  Patents and copyrights are
 >quite different.

Sure, a copyright is different from a patent. If I release my code under 
the GPL though, it is made quite clear that I won't try and charge for 
the code's use in the future (as long as the source code is released 
etc, etc). The point of a patent is that you own something (intellectual 
property in this case) that you can license for use as you wish.

That said, if I implement some idea that someone else already owns a 
patent on, I am not able to prevent later problems regardless of whether 
I release my code under the GPL. If I was unclear on that point, I 
apologise.

 >If I'm not mistaken, you are again implying that use of the GPL might
 >help ensure freedom when faced with aggressive patent holders
 >(probably Microsoft in this case, since they claim to own IP covering
 >vertex programs)
 >This is simply incorrect.  Am I misunderstanding you?

As I said above, it doesn't protect against patent holders, but it is an 
assurance that I won't seek a patent claim on my work which I am 
licensing to you. I'm not Microsoft bashing. They are by no means the 
only company who hold software patents.

I hope that clarifies things. That said, I'm not a patent lawyer so I 
could still be mistaken...

 >PS  I happen to be a fan of the GPL, just not for Squeak

I'd like to know under what circumstances you feel that the GPL would 
not be suitable for Squeak though.I may have missed something.


Best wishes,

	Simon