Hi again!

"Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> With all due respect, Goran, you need to seek advice of counsel upon 
> whom you can rely for the answers to these questions, in view of the 
> details of your particularly plan or proposal.  The following is not 
> intended as legal advice:

Ok!
 
> It will probably not surprise you to know that I wouldn't recommend 
> doing either.  The risks are simply not worth it.  Suffice it to say, 
> even if what you propose would not violate the intellectual property or 
> contracts of others, the results would likely be marginalized as too 
> risky to use or include with a public distribution.

Hmmm, ok.
 
> On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 06:07  AM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se 
> wrote:
> 
> > Russell Allen asked about using GPL for a Squeak program and I would
> > like to refine the question below.
> >
> > First, I actually agree (!) fully with Andrew regarding GPL and Squeak
> > itself (I think). I can't see any real
> > point in trying (which is impossible) to make Squeak itself GPLd - it
> > would far more suit the community to try to move the Squeak license even
> > more in the direction of BSD (as has been discussed).
> >
> > A few scenarios that I would like to find answers to though:
> >
> > 1. Can I "slang" a LGPLd library with Squeak? (I guess I can, right?)
> > 2. Can I write a Squeak app and release the app as GPL if I don't
> > distribute the GPL stuff in an image (see below)?
> >
> > Most of the discussion has been about bringing GPLd source into the base
> > image - and this is not what Russel wants I guess. For example, can I
> > write an app in Squeak and distribute it as GPLd source (changeset
> > typically) together
> > with a base image not containing the GPLd code (since that would break
> > the GPL) and an ImageSegment with the code (that the image loads upon
> > startup)? In essence we are mimicking how Java would load a jar-file
> > (even though a jar-file only holds compiled classes and an ImageSegment
> > can hold more than that).
> 
> RMS said, "no" regarding the co-distribution of changeset and naked 
> original.  We never consulted FSF concerning ImageSements.

He did? Weird, or!? I may be stupid but I can't see what logic he uses
for that argument.
I need to read up on the linking stuff in GPL I guess...

So in short we can not write GPL software with Squeak without risk?

Ooops. That sounds pretty bad. Up until now I thought that not being
able to get Squeak
into Debian was the largest "problem" but this seems a much larger
problem IMHO - and yes,
I agree with you that it sounds like this is a problem with GPL.

A lot of OSS developers like GPL and if they can't use Squeak to write
GPL programs that is
a potential loss in the future for the Squeak community I think.

Do you know what the other similar "camps" out there say on this matter?
Python, Ruby, other Smalltalks etc. Or is this only applicable in
Smalltalk?

> I urge you to stop.

Ok! :-)

Question no 1 was primarily out of interest and question no 2 was based
on the fact that I
have written a little tool for a customer that they have agreed to
release as GPL.

I should try to convince them of another license then - since it's not a
big thing
they could probably go for BSD too I think. At least a BSD app is
alright with Squeak I hope? :-)

Putting an app (compared to baseimage stuff) under SqueakL is not very
attractive I think -
the license is so Apple-centric.

regards, Göran

<CSOTD>
"Currently out of snippets, here is a UserFriendly comic instead... :-)"
HandMorph attach: (SketchMorph fromStream:
('http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/01nov/xuf003653.gif'
asUrl retrieveContents contentStream))
</CSOTD>