Randal,
your web page doesn't come across like your mailing list communication, which has always seemed non-inflammatory and reasonable. Two things immediately annoy me on the page you reference. Firstly you say 'Damn you GPL'. Second, the comment you quote says that the GPL is 'completely unacceptable', which IMO is an aggressive (redundant) overemphasis. If it had simply said 'incompatible' it wouldn't piss me off, and would merely stand as the warning you intend.
I'm building a commercial Smalltalk implementation that will have commercially licensed components e.g. not (L)GPL, or even MIT/Apache/ BSD. I don't support all of Stallman's philosophy - I don't believe there is any moral imperative for software to be 'free'. I support the concept of DRM etc etc etc. I'm not a GPL or even O/S fanatic, although I completely support the right of anyone to use any license for *their* work without being criticized for it. I perfectly understand Paolo's response to that web page.
One could "freely examine the implementation and use as is or derive from it to contribute to the squeak project" if Squeak was GPL. I guess the GST authors simply don't want people commercially benefiting from their work without giving anything back. Fair enough. Even so, IMO it is possible to use GST to deliver commercial applications that include non-(L)GPL ST source / documentation / resources, and I could in fact deliver a commercially licensed Smalltalk using GST, subject to some reasonable conditions.
On 21/11/2008, at 11:57 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
I presume by "these sorts of responses" you mean Paolo's response to me. My response is driven by my responsibility as being an elected member of the leadership team, to ensure that Squeak 4.0 will have a completely clean license. We worked very hard over the last few years to track down every contribution to squeak since its beginning, obtaining legal documents updating the license, and it would be a shame if a mistakenly derived work from GNU Smalltalk were to taint the distribution once again.
I'm serious about this, and will continue to bring it up in every appropriate context. I wish this weren't the case: I pleaded with Paolo to dual license the Smalltalk code in GNU Smalltalk under the MIT license so that people can freely examine the implementation and use as is or derive from it to contribute to the squeak project. So far, these requests have been declined, albeit understandably. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 merlyn@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
Antony Blakey -------------------------- CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd Ph: 0438 840 787
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. --Stephen F Roberts
Begin forwarded message:
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Date: 21 November 2008 11:57:10 PM To: Steven W Riggins mailinglists@geeksrus.com Cc: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: what is holding back Smalltalk? Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
I presume by "these sorts of responses" you mean Paolo's response to me. My response is driven by my responsibility as being an elected member of the leadership team, to ensure that Squeak 4.0 will have a completely clean license. We worked very hard over the last few years to track down every contribution to squeak since its beginning, obtaining legal documents updating the license, and it would be a shame if a mistakenly derived work from GNU Smalltalk were to taint the distribution once again.
I'm serious about this, and will continue to bring it up in every appropriate context. I wish this weren't the case: I pleaded with Paolo to dual license the Smalltalk code in GNU Smalltalk under the MIT license so that people can freely examine the implementation and use as is or derive from it to contribute to the squeak project. So far, these requests have been declined, albeit understandably. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 merlyn@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
Begin forwarded message:
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Date: 21 November 2008 11:57:10 PM To: Steven W Riggins mailinglists@geeksrus.com Cc: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: what is holding back Smalltalk? Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
I presume by "these sorts of responses" you mean Paolo's response to me. My response is driven by my responsibility as being an elected member of the leadership team, to ensure that Squeak 4.0 will have a completely clean license. We worked very hard over the last few years to track down every contribution to squeak since its beginning, obtaining legal documents updating the license, and it would be a shame if a mistakenly derived work from GNU Smalltalk were to taint the distribution once again.
I'm serious about this, and will continue to bring it up in every appropriate context. I wish this weren't the case: I pleaded with Paolo to dual license the Smalltalk code in GNU Smalltalk under the MIT license so that people can freely examine the implementation and use as is or derive from it to contribute to the squeak project. So far, these requests have been declined, albeit understandably. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 merlyn@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
Begin forwarded message:
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Date: 21 November 2008 11:57:10 PM To: Steven W Riggins mailinglists@geeksrus.com Cc: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: what is holding back Smalltalk? Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
I presume by "these sorts of responses" you mean Paolo's response to me. My response is driven by my responsibility as being an elected member of the leadership team, to ensure that Squeak 4.0 will have a completely clean license. We worked very hard over the last few years to track down every contribution to squeak since its beginning, obtaining legal documents updating the license, and it would be a shame if a mistakenly derived work from GNU Smalltalk were to taint the distribution once again.
I'm serious about this, and will continue to bring it up in every appropriate context. I wish this weren't the case: I pleaded with Paolo to dual license the Smalltalk code in GNU Smalltalk under the MIT license so that people can freely examine the implementation and use as is or derive from it to contribute to the squeak project. So far, these requests have been declined, albeit understandably. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 merlyn@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion