[ANN] Closure Compiler

Andrew C. Greenberg werdna at mucow.com
Tue Mar 25 20:06:35 UTC 2003


Be careful about the suggestion that we can survive well with a 
Squeak-L main distro and various distributions under other licenses.   
This probably (almost certainly) isn't so.

Some licenses (Squeak-L and GPL, for example) do not mix, and using one 
licenses for a distro and another for distributed code, however 
comforting it may make one feel "technically speaking," is legally a 
recipe for disaster.  While some of my lay colleagues on this list 
disagree with me on this point, I can only suggest that a Squeakmap 
comprising incompatible licenses distributed for inclusion in the 
monolithinc image is a killer problem.

We have looked into this before, tried to negotiate with FSF for a 
compromise, and it is presently their position that loading code into 
our image is NOT legally equivalent under GPL to loading an application 
onto a computer with an operating system -- indeed, he goes further, 
considering it to be the same as merging libraries into a single app.  
I have spoken with RMS on this myself, and he is not sanguine about 
letting things lie -- he doesn't want images to be mixed unless they 
are all GPL, and he considers the entire image to be GPL'd by the 
loading of a GPL package into the image.  (He feels similarly about 
programs using GPL'd dynamic libraries on an operating system with 
applications not GPL'd, by the way.)

Like it or not, we have a problem -- it will not go away just because 
we wish it to be so.

Please don't do this folks.  We have enough licensing issues already.  
Promiscuously cross-licensing like this could kill either SM or Squeak, 
or both.

On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 11:45 AM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se 
wrote:

> Travis Griggs <tgriggs at keyww.com> wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> As a Squeak list lurker... I find it entertaining that there is
>> widespread recognition that there has got to be a "better way" than 
>> the
>> monolithic image, but at the same time there is a drive to apply a
>> monolegal license. Ironic, don't you think? Squeak should just be a
>> distro. Otherwise, you're going to be having flamewars about whether 
>> it
>> should be called SmaCC or Squeak/SmaCC (aka Linux vs. GNU/Linux).
>
> I don't agree. The current discussion is more like the DFSG in Debian
> (Debian Free Software Guideline). We aren't talking about Squeak
> packages in general - those can be under whichever license they like -
> see SM.
>
> We are talking about "Squeak official". Our common ground. The artefact
> that we maintain together. I would say it is very natural to keep that
> under ONE license - all other similar projects I have seen do the same.
> And currently we are forced to Squeak-L for that, even if most of us
> would like to move in a more BSDish direction.
>
> The distros (Squeak official + a lot of other packages) are probably
> soon appearing too. (we need a better SM first).
>
> regards, Göran


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list