[ANN] Actalk on SM

goran.hultgren at bluefish.se goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Mon Nov 25 10:18:48 UTC 2002


Serge Stinckwich <Serge.Stinckwich at info.unicaen.fr> wrote:
[SNIP]
> 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.

Well, I think unfortunately LGPL doesn't work either because when the
code enters the image it is considered to be "linked". See my previous
post with earlier quotes from Andrew.

My personal recommendation is MIT dual licensed with SqueakL but that
would of course completely erase any GNUish mechanisms.

Note: There are multiple issues at hand like "Do we want multiple
licenses in base Squeak?" "Answer: No!" and "Are we talking about
distribution as image or as sourcecode?". Personally I am not sure what
happens if a package in sourceform is distributed "on the side" together
with an image.

> 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.

Sure, there have been numerous attempts and I have a bag full of
postings on squeak-dev and also on the OSI list when we tried to OSI
certify SqueakL.

regards, Göran




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list