[squeak-dev] Re: what is holding back Smalltalk?

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Sat Nov 22 04:11:59 UTC 2008


I think there alway will be issues around licensing (and great money
for lawyers) until people understand that they need to change the
perception on what 'intellectual property' means.

As someone said: nobody pays a license fee to the architect who
designed the building each time someone entering it. So why we should
pay a software architect for each copy of his software? People should
be paid for things they do, not for mass-produced copies of their
creation. Making a copy is not an act of creating intellectual
property - its just a mechanic process.


2008/11/22 Colin Putney <cputney at wiresong.ca>:
>
> On 21-Nov-08, at 8:16 AM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "Paolo" == Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> Paolo> And to be clear about this once for all, I completely agree with
>> the
>> Paolo> above assessment.  Squeak people do need to be careful, even a bit
>> Paolo> paranoid if you want.  But implying that you cannot look at GNU
>> Paolo> Smalltalk for fear that you'll glance at its code and be tainted by
>> it,
>> Paolo> goes way beyond paranoia.
>>
>> Get a legal document from the FSF lawyers that confirms that and holds us
>> permanently harmless, and I'll shut up.  Until then, Squeak devs are at
>> risk.
>
> Squeak devs are at risk of what? How much risk is there? Are the attendant
> benefits worth the risk?
>
> The mere existence of risk isn't very good argument for or against anything
> - if it were, we would be fools to get out of bed in the morning.
>
> Colin
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list