Hi,

Thank you for your answer, I'm happy to know I got it wrong.
Let me explain what I want to do, and please tell me if it's ok.

I want to develop a businness/financial  software that deals with customers,
invoices, accouting, cash flow, charts , sql database and that sort of
thing.
This software will have nothing to do with Squeak, except it would be built
on top of Squeak.
It would run on a modified version of squeak VM, with all of the development
tools and lot of packages deleted from the image, no sources and no way to
get 'in' the system.
I'm ok for giving all the source of the tools and extensions to the system
and vm I could develop (widgets, printing, tricks, howto, etc) to the Squeak
comunity, but ONLY to the Squeak community.

I don't want to distribute any source with my software, just the exe/image
files, and nothing else.
I don't want to display any special license or copyright mention anywhere in
the software.
I would include a mention and pointers to Squeak in technical documentation,
as we usually do in small letters somewhere near the end of the 3rd part of
the preface with other copyrights mentions.

Is it compatible with SqueakL/IanL and generally speaking with the spirit of
squeak ?


<goran.krampe at bluefish.se> a écrit dans le message de news:
E19sI5C-0008Aq-00 at 213.112.30.95...
> Hi!
>
> "ALR" <alr.dev at free.fr> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After having 'smalltalk-squeaked' for few months, I am thinking about
using
> > squeak for a commercial development.
>
> Nice!
>
> > Here are some issues I found about that, and every answer is welcome:
> >
> > - Unix and Windows Squeak vm sources licences:
> > I recently downloaded a linux version of the squeak vm an found several
> > files with the squeak archive : COPYING, LICENSE etc. This distribution
does
> > not follow the Squeak License : modified files from the unix vm,
actually
> > copyrighted Ian Piumarta and other contributors, can be renamed and used
if
> > the copyright notice is replaced by the GPL notice.
>
> Well, I am not sure you got that right. They will only turn into "GPL"
> if used in another "context" than "Squeak". I just happen to know :-)
> that Ian is just about (or perhaps already has) to commit a much more
> clear version of IanSqueakL and that clause.
>
> > This should not be an issue for a commercial product build on squeak, as
> > long as the image file (ie the product) is not concerned by this license
> > change to GPL, but stay under SqueakL, it's just a bit confusing for our
> > customers.
> >
> > *** Can someone confirm to me that the image file does not fall under
this
> > GPL license ?
>
> The image file does not fall under this. And as long as your changed
> Unix VM is still used to excute Squeak images it will still be SqueakL.
>
> > *** What about changing the unix vm license to SqueakL instead of GPL ?
>
> Eh? The Unix VM license is under what I like to call "IanSqueakL". It is
> a variant of SqueakL that (apart from the 3 very modest clauses
> regarding renaming files etc) *is* exactly SqueakL *as long as used in
> the context of Squeak*. Ian is, as I said, changing this wording so that
> it will be under SqueakL as long as it still can execute an official
> Squeak image.
>
> > *** What is the status of the win32 vm source(s) on this point : SqueakL
or
> > GPL ?
>
> Again, do note that the Unix VM is not under GPL. It only turns into GPL
> if the source is being used for something else than running Squeak
> images.
>
> And the answer to this question is that Andreas chose to put the Win32
> VM supportcode under SqueakL.
>
> Sidenote: Perhaps *now* my points about this issue can more clearly be
> understood in the light of this thread. I surely hope that people can
> see the trouble that multiple licenses bring us.
>
> > - Fonts is another problem in commercial distribution as there are very
few
> > free fonts on the web. Most of the fonts who are 'free' are for
> > noncommercial use, and I didn't found one usable, the ttf fonts seems to
be
> > garbage with the font reader.
> > This is true for the fonts I found, windows fonts are ok, but
copyrighted.
> [SNIP]
>
> I will not go into the Font issue, because there are others that know
> much more on that topic.
>
> regards, Göran
>
>