On 20.10.2005, at 23:46, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:

>
> I've read through them but I'm not an expert on licenses.  Can you  
> give me
> your reactions to using either one of these license models for our
> cryptography packages?  What would the general reaction be?  Has  
> anyone
> compared the models enough to tell me the difference between Squeak  
> and
> LGPL?  For LGPL I understood the extra requirements to separate
> functionality of the package form the applications so that it can  
> be run
> separately and the source code availability requirements which  
> considering
> that this is smalltalk and source is always available we can  
> include the
> license on the class comment to make sure that developers include this
> notice in their applications.  We have not decided to go this  
> route; we are
> just exploring the options.
>

LGPL has the problem that it seems to only work for C based system with
real "linked" libraries. If you add the code of a an LGPLed smalltalk  
framework,
it could be argued that you are not linking but reusing, thus forcing  
LGPL on the
complete image. (I think in situations like these, people add a  
preamble to the
license to explain what they consider to be ok. I think GNU Smalltalk  
did that)

For Squeak, I think we decided to use the MIT license for all new  
stuff, with
the goal to eventually have everything with that license.

        Marcus