Bijan Parsia bparsia@email.unc.edu wrote:
--On Monday, January 28, 2002 10:27 AM +0100 goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
Ok, a few simple personal points:
- If SqF want's to be a good "buddy"
Agreed.
- If Cees (in person) would like to be a good buddy then hey! Go ahead!
:-)
He's *my* good buddy :)
- If SqF for some reason thinks that this might be a project that
Squeak can benefit from then I would like to remind you that GPL isn't "compatible" with SqueakL which means that "base Squeak" can not incorporate any code coming out from such a project into the Squeak image.
This isn't true. They could dual licence. Since Paul seems intent on getting clear title (or clear licencing) to incorporated code, there will already be a mechanism for interacting with authors.
Yes, dual licensing is a plausible way, as I also noted below.
I did not read Paul's postings in full detail so I might have missed something about his licensing strategy. But I think he clearly stated that he wanted to be able to "raid" both GPL and BSD based sources which would place "Bellesqueak" in GPL land without possibility of dual licensing (correct me if I am wrong).
Raided GPL code would need to go back to the original authors for relicencing to get put in normal Squeak. Hmm. Only if you wanted to
Yes. Here in lies the problem. "Raiding" sounded as being able to pick and not ask. If you need to ask for another license I would use another word. :-)
distribute it? There's no problem is you just want to load it up in your own image.
But that wouldn't help "base Squeak" as I called it. :-) Whatever, we are all in agreement I guess!
<CSOTD>"OK, I'm finalling doing one of these. This uses ImageSegments to help figure out memory consumption of your objects:"
String streamContents: [:strm | (ImageSegment new copyFromRootsForExport: Browser allInstances) printSpaceAnalysisOn: strm]
</CSOTD>
Hehe! Go, go...
regards, Göran