On Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 05:00  AM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se 
wrote:

> 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.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  A lot of OSS developers also don't care, so long 
as it is open source and generally free (per dictionary, not FSF), as 
Squeak-L certainly is.  The lack of GPL has not hurt a number of 
exceptionally popular and successful open source projects, including 
Apache, Python, FreeBSD, and otherwise.

But the real problem is deeper.  GPL just doesn't work with monolithic 
image systems, for the reasons previously stated -- it has the effect of 
writing out of the license the (known to be essential) exception for 
independently written programs.  At least not as RMS interprets the GPL 
(I do believe there are strong legal arguments to the contrary).  In 
part for this reason, no GPL'd Smalltalk system has been successful to 
date, nor can it ever succeed, again, for reasons previously stated.

And there isn't much hope to those who agitate for a GPL changeover, 
notwithstanding these problems.  Apple certainly will never agree to 
broaden limitations substantially beyond, say, the APSL, which FSF 
actually changed their definition of "free software" to facilitate 
panning it.  (I remembered the colloquy after OSI approved APSL, RMS 
published his criticisms claiming it was non-free.  When someone noted 
that the definitions on the FSF website didn't support his argument, do 
you think the argument or the published definitions changed?  So much 
for principle.)

At any rate, so long as Squeak-L remains arguably non-GPL compatible 
(and the problem really is predicated more on the fact that the 
cohabitation language in GPL works on the OS/application model, using 
assumptions that fail for monolithic images), this just isn't going to 
happen.  Squeak is highly likely to abandon the image model (indeed, 
current thoughts seem to be moving along the line of a shared net-based 
uber-monolithic model), even if we could shed the license.

It seems to me, indeed, that the GPL community has suffered a loss 
because of its inability to use Squeak.  But the broader open source 
community seems to have accepted it warmly, and it is only a few who 
seem to be having difficulties.

Mind you, I do support attempting to get Squeak-L more in line with 
traditional open source licenses, shedding the proprietary font 
provisions, and modifying the indemnity provisions to the compromises 
that have already been negotiated in MPL, APSL and so many others, which 
will bring Squeak-L to the level of OSI-compliant.