[squeak-dev] Re: On the swazoo list

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Tue Mar 25 08:05:28 UTC 2008

Bruce Badger wrote:
> On 25/03/2008, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Bah. The complexity of LGPL is no FUD. The reason these questions arise
>>  is because LGPL is overly complex.
> No, Andreas. In this case the issue has arrisen because someone has
> decided by themselves to make other peoples copyright material
> available under a new license of their choosing without discussion
> with the copyright holders.
> This is copyright infringement.

Sorry, but by "these questions" I mean the questions that arose around 
the issue what it means for projects like Seaside if Swazoo is LGPLed, 
not whether Swazoo actually is LGPL or not. I'm not arguing either way 
on that (because I don't know the facts) but I can say that the whole 
line of questions starting from "what do I have to do to comply with 
LGPL" only comes up because of the complexity of LGPL itself. And that's 
no FUD, that's the (sad) reality.

   - Andreas

> The situation would be just the same if someone picked up your code
> and made it available under a license that suited them.  I doubt you'd
> like it.
> The nature of the licenses is nothing to do with this particular mess.

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list