On Friday, November 2, 2001, at 05:29  AM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se 
wrote:

>>  The fact that I can't incorporate a GPL program in Squeak
>> proves the point.
>
> Well. It proves to me that SqueakL is not GPL compatible.
> It doesn't prove to me that GPL is "not free".

Q.E.D.

There is nothing about Squeak making it non-interoperable with GPL 
software apart from the legal limitations imposed upon the use of GPL.  
I cannot use Squeak, an open source, readily available software program 
that any person can use for most any purpose without constraint, with 
any GPL code.  Which is the "free software?"  By any definition of the 
word "free," at least one proffered outside the FSF website, the answer 
to reasonable people must be clear.  GPL is constrained, not free.  I 
can't use.  It is not free.

Goran, here, simply defines "free" to mean "subject to GPL," and then 
announces his conclusions therefrom.  I think this putative retort 
proves my point more clearly than anything I might have written.

P.S.: It isn't just Squeak-L -- this applies to ANY MONOLITHIC IMAGE 
LATE-BOUND SOFTWARE.  Unless the software is relicensable under GPL, 
then the software cannot be used or distributed with GPL software.  
Whatever this is, it is not freedom.