On 10/21/05, Ron Teitelbaum Ron@usmedrec.com wrote:
One of our members suggested that we contact Cincom, which we did. We asked if a port of Cincom code was possible, and we received a positive reply.
That'd be great, because VW contains everything up to a functioning SSL implementation (I never understood why they took the trouble to go that far, but hey, it's cool and if they want to share it... ;)).
They would prefer LGPL or the Artistic License for the code that we port from them directly.
I think the Artistic License is the most free, and a quick read doesn't show any glaring problems. For a non-base package LGPL would do just fine. Richard Stallman narrowed LGPL's scope for GNU Smalltalk to a workable definition of 'linking', etcetera, which means that chances that the FSF will come down and hunt you (on who's behalf anyway?) are slight. For a base package LGPL would IMO still be fine, but people are likely to object.
I think Artistic is in spirit quite close to Squeak-L, but IANAL etcetera :)
Personally, for getting access to that large volume of crypto code, I'd be happy with either.