Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Because he is trying to appeal to a broader audience than appeals to
>> LGPL within the Squeak community.
> 
> Because the Squeak community does not want to read licenses and prefers 
> to remain hostage of FUD.

Bah. The complexity of LGPL is no FUD. The reason these questions arise 
is because LGPL is overly complex. To apply it properly you need to know 
what constitutes modification vs. what constitutes use,  you need to 
know whether the combination of particular pieces of code are 
"derivative work" or a "modified work" or "combined work", you need to 
know what it means to have a "suitable linking mechanism" and so on.

For anyone who likes clarity, LGPL is not the license of choice. Choose 
GPL or MIT. With those two you know what you get, there is no 
possibility of misinterpreting any of the two.

The other problem with (L)GPL is the people who choose it. That's 
because those people clearly want others to "share by default" and have 
therefore a vested interest in the broadest possible application of the 
"modification clauses". Which means that, as a user of a piece of LGPLed 
code, you need to be aware that the original author might come after you 
because he feels you're not sharing the stuff that (you think) you 
rightly can claim your own use of the library. After all, if the author 
would trust you, they might as well choose MIT and let you decide what 
and how to share it. This intrinsic distrust of (L)GPL is why I don't 
voluntarily subject myself to these licenses.

Cheers,
   - Andreas