On 20.10.2005, at 23:46, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
I've read through them but I'm not an expert on licenses. Can you give me your reactions to using either one of these license models for our cryptography packages? What would the general reaction be? Has anyone compared the models enough to tell me the difference between Squeak and LGPL? For LGPL I understood the extra requirements to separate functionality of the package form the applications so that it can be run separately and the source code availability requirements which considering that this is smalltalk and source is always available we can include the license on the class comment to make sure that developers include this notice in their applications. We have not decided to go this route; we are just exploring the options.
LGPL has the problem that it seems to only work for C based system with real "linked" libraries. If you add the code of a an LGPLed smalltalk framework, it could be argued that you are not linking but reusing, thus forcing LGPL on the complete image. (I think in situations like these, people add a preamble to the license to explain what they consider to be ok. I think GNU Smalltalk did that)
For Squeak, I think we decided to use the MIT license for all new stuff, with the goal to eventually have everything with that license.
Marcus