On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:52:50AM +0100, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> 
> I just meant IMO that the fact you can not incorporate a GPL program in
> Squeak
> does not prove that GPL is "not free". To me it just "proves" exactly
> that you can not
> incorporate GPL software in Squeak. (Just to make sure: It doesn't prove
> that there is
> anything really "wrong" with SqueakL NOR that GPL is "free" in the
> Webster meaning.)

And can I just point out again that the FSF itself has recognized that
the GPL's "linking" clauses easily become broken outside a
"compile-link-deliver" C/Unix style paradigm, and is trying to fix
them, but hasn't figured out yet how to generalize things properly?

Given that fact, I don't think you can draw conclusions like Andrew
did about how evilly authoritarian the GPL is on the basis of how it
relates to Squeak -- it is *admittedly* somewhat broken with regards
to things like Squeak because of a paradigm clash.  (Remember, "GNU"
itself was originally supposed to be an operating system which
replaced and duplicated the functions of Unix...)

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
"A. We're not evil.  B. We're not an empire."
 --Steve Ballmer of Microsoft, lying through his teeth
======================================================
Ed Heil ....................... uncorrected at yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------