LGPL(S) (was Re: GLORP)

goran.krampe at bluefish.se goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Tue Jun 8 10:30:21 UTC 2004


radoslav hodnicak <rh at 4096.sk> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> > That is actually a rather interesting addendum. As many of us recall
> > Andrew Greenberg has repeatedly argued that GPL/LGPL don't fit into the
> > image centric world of Smalltalk. Even though the text doesn't sound
> > very "legalese" I assume Cincom has had lawyers look it over.
> >
> > Interesting that they still use it. I can only guess that it is a way to
> > "ride" on the popular LGPL license, even though the logical move would
> > perhaps have been to craft a license that *does* work in a Smalltalk
> > world.
> Don't be paranoid. The origin of LGPL goes way back when Glorp development
> started at Object People, changing the license now would require only
> slightly less effort than to change squeak's license.
> rado

No, you misunderstood me. I did not imply any... well granted - that
sounds like a much more probable reason. :)

I was falsely under the impression that GLORP was fully copyrighted by
Alan in person, but I see on the home page that it was originally

Anyway, I meant no harm. I am merely curious in regards to licenses/SM

regards, Göran

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list