On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 08:38 PM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se 
wrote:

> "Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> I am an IP and Patent lawyer.  After a careful analysis, and extensive
>> discussions with FSF and RMS on the subject matter, it is my present
>> view that GPL is unsuitable for use with a monolithic object image
>> system unless all code of that system is to be GPL'd.  While LGPL can
>> be made to work for things like plugins, GPL simply is "too viral" to
>> work in an open community such as ours.
>
> Andrew - could you explain what you mean with "can be made to work"?

LGPL, as opposed to GPL, is non-viral to calling programs.  It is 
usable for plugins and attached libraries, particularly if 
dual-licensed with Squeak-L.  I wouldn't use it to distribute Smalltalk 
code.

> Reading the above I gather that Andrew also thinks LGPL is a no-no for
> the image, but could possibly be used for plugins. All this sounds to 
> me
> that both licenses really should not be used if we can avoid it, is 
> this
> a correct interpretation Andrew?

Yes.  Although I have not given any thought to LGPL Smalltalk code 
distributed outside the image.   Let me consider this.