AW: [Squeakfoundation]RE: Squeakfoundation digest, Vol 1 #93 - 8 msgs

[Cees de Groot]

Andreas Raab <Andreas.Raab@gmx.de> said:
>[...]. That's my way of thinking about it and I don't believe that
>anyone would consider some function called through FFI being an
>"addition to" the virtual machine.
>[...]
>Actually, having a number of companies ask for their permission might
>just raise their interest. Don't wake sleeping lions...
>
Maybe it'd be an idea if SqC would ask Apple for a clarification here. I think
it is a very important issue that we can make clear (in terms that a lawyer
will accept) what is and what isn't allowed in the area of proprietary
extensions - if you want to make a product a success, you need to be prepared
for companies wanting to earn money with it. The plugin bit seems to be a big
hole in the license...

(or maybe it would be enough to strike the term 'plugin' and call it 'fastFFI'
;-))

You may be right with your remark about now waking sleeping lawyers. I may
be right with my remark about better being safe than sorry. WANL (we are not
lawyers). IMHO, the fact that this arouses questions that I feel we cannot
answer is a bug that should be fixed.

-- 
Cees de Groot               http://www.cdegroot.com     <cg@cdegroot.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD  1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B