On Feb 1, 2008 9:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu.org> wrote:
> I have also written to the FSF and got some information.  Together with
> the e-mail Diego forwarded, I think this should be enough to settle the
> matter.

I'm confused on how this settles the matter (comments below).

> > As long as there is a package system and/or clear namespace separation,
> > it is always possible to see where a program ends and a library starts,
> > even if they ultimately end up in the same VM or runtime.

Since Squeak doesn't have namespaces (by default anyway) and afaik the
Squeak package systems aren't compatible with other Smalltalks
directly, that leaves file in/out, no?  Is that enough of a "clear
separation"?

> > The whole purpose of the LGPL is that it states our policy for
> > sharing.   :)   And like I said, it's quite possible [for Squeak to
> > use] GNU Smalltalk libraries without "tainting" the rest of the code.

Below the "rest of the code" is defined as the entire package.  It
sounds like if I make a package that depends on LGPL code then my code
would in fact be tainted right?

> Of
> course, this is somewhat unfair for Squeak: MIT license is more liberal
> and GNU Smalltalk could include Squeak's code at will, but the converse
> is not true.

> Also, this only applies if someone wants to avoid altogether the FSF
> copyright, which is only true for code that goes into SqueakCore.

Why is it only true in that case?  It's only *absolutely required* in that case.

> > And while it's true you can't take code under LGPLv3 and release
> > it under one of those other licenses, there should be absolutely no
> > problem with the other Smalltalk developers taking some libraries from
> > GNU Smalltalk and putting them in Squeak.
> > Developers who used those
> > libraries would need to follow the terms of the LGPL when doing so, but
> > the rest of Squeak could remain under the MIT/Apache licenses without
> > any problem, assuming there are no licenses on any of the older code
> > that would conflict with it. [...]

So as mentioned above, you wont taint the whole image but you will
taint your own library.

> Having said this, I also have to warn you.  The above says that, if you
> read the licenses, take into account license compatibility, and apply
> common sense adequately, "it's okay to study our LGPLed code to write
> your own independent implementation".  But it's *not* an official
> statement saying so.

I haven't seen much intersection between law and common sense. :)  As
I mentioned in a previous email, it doesn't matter how much good will
there is today.  Boards can change, new owners come along, situations
come along.  At that point it doesn't matter how anyone felt once upon
a time.  It matters what's in writing.