On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 09:35:57 -0800
Alan Kay <Alan.Kay at squeakland.org> wrote:

> Please be careful with this. The GPL license is a "polluting" license 
> that claims to turn anything in which it is embedded into GPL that 
> can't be used commercially. Squeak's license is much more open and 
> friendly. It allows people to make commercial products from it and 
> mainly asks that people post fundamental improvements to the system, 
> language, and software engineering.
> 
> Please ask Jean-Pierre (as I do now) to reconsider using something 
> like the Squeak license or the Berkeley license, etc. BTW, this is 
> how we got our MPEG kernel: it was GPL, but the original programmer 
> listened to our story and was willing to give us a special 
> non-polluting license.

I don't want to open yet another can of worms about these annoying licenses issues, but we needed to
clarify all of these, before there is too much confusion ...

In fact, Jean-Pierre let me choose the license for his code, but i don't want to pollute the Squeak source code.
Maybe i have to put the Actalk source code, until all these license problems are resolved, under the LGPL (like the StarBrowser). 
LGPL has all the benefits of GPL without his viral nature.
I agree with you Alan, that we need to be very carefull with all of this.

If there is some interests, i could try to summarize all the previous posts on the Squeak list and c.l.s newsgroup
about these issues in order to have a more clearer picture.

-- 
Serge Stinckwich                                         -< )  multiagent.com
Université de Caen>CNRS UMR 6072>GREYC>MAD                /~\  squeak.org
http://www.iutc3.unicaen.fr/serge/                       (/  | zope.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] _|_/  debian.org