Squeak and LGPL

Randal L. Schwartz merlyn at stonehenge.com
Sat Feb 2 12:26:11 UTC 2008


>>>>> "stephane" == stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse at free.fr> writes:

stephane> so this means that we could port a lot of new code to GNU without  problem.

*to* GNU.  Certainly.  But nothing I've seen at all changes
my original concern, because nothing new has been added *in* writing.

In summary, my original concern, which still apparently stands, is that you
*cannot* look at LGPL material and copy or adapt it into the Squeak core,
because anything derived from LGPL code must remain under the LGPL (unless
*relicensed* by the original author), and the resulting LGPL would then apply
to *all* of Squeak, which some of us consider unacceptable, and possibly not
even possible given the current license hassles anyway.

Paolo - stop confusing the issue.  The issue is only what I just stated.  I'm
*not* talking about stuff in squeaksource or other distributions methods.  I'm
not talking about dual-licensed stuff because the authors added a
Squeak-compatible license.  I'm only talking about people working on stuff
that may eventually want to be included in the Squeak core, because this isn't
separated enough to allow an independent license, even with the clarification
you gave.

If you can get FSF to grant *in writing* an exception to the license to allow
the above, then I will withdraw my concern.  However, given the commitment of
the FSF to the LGPL (and GPL), it'll be pretty unlikely.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn at stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list