Andreas Raab wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Because he is trying to appeal to a broader audience than appeals to
>>> LGPL within the Squeak community.
>
> 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.

Most excellently expressed. Thank you.

Jimmie