I very strongly disagree with the statement on SqueakMap that reads:

> Licenses/LGPL - GNU Lesser General Public License. Only suitable for 
> plugins.
>     


I believe this statement was derived from a post by Andrew C. Greenberg, 
wherein he stated:

> "I am an IP and Patent lawyer.  After a careful analysis, and 
> extensive discussions with FSF and RMS on the subject matter, it is my 
> present view that GPL is unsuitable for use with a monolithic object 
> image system unless all code of that system is to be GPL'd.  While 
> LGPL can be made to work for things like plugins, GPL simply is "too 
> viral" to work in an open community such as ours."


Notice that Andrew's statement was primarily about GPL code, with only a 
somewhat passing comment about LGPL.  As to the use of LGPL for external 
libraries (like those found on SqueakMap), Andrew later said:

> "LGPL, as opposed to GPL, is non-viral to calling programs.  It is 
> usable for plugins and attached libraries, particularly if 
> dual-licensed with Squeak-L.  I wouldn't use it to distribute 
> Smalltalk code...I have not given any thought to LGPL Smalltalk code 
> distributed outside the image.   Let me consider this." 


The key phrase here is Andrew's admission that "I have not given any 
thought to LGPL Smalltalk code distributed outside the image".

GLORP is licensed as LGPL.  GLORP began life as an Object People 
project, and for various political reasons will probably remain LGPL. 
 However, I can categorically state that many within Cincom have plans 
to eventually "officially" support GLORP as the preferred O/R mapping 
framework for VisualWorks.  In other words, there are plans for GLORP to 
see an active life as a supported part of a major commercial Smalltalk 
implementation.  And this, in and of itself, goes directly against the 
SqueakMap statement that LGPL is "only suitable for plugins".

GLORP also has an attorney retained to investigate such issues.  At some 
point an "official" opinion might be solicited from that attorney (with, 
of course, his usual fees to investigate the issue sufficiently to 
render an "official" opinion).  However, for now, it isn't considered to 
be a high enough priority.  Thus, for now, a simpler approach to quelch 
all uncertainties might be to get an "official" opinion rendered 
directly by the FSF concerning LGPL (just as it appears Andrew did for 
GPL), since they are the creators of the LGPL license.  At some point 
(hopefully soon) I plan on attempting to do just that.

But in any case, it certainly *is* the current opinion of many that LGPL 
is certainly good for more than "just VM plugins".  I am one of those 
people.  I strongly disagree with the statement on SqueakMap that states 
it that way (though I personally completely agree with Andrew's 
statement about GPL code).

Nevin

(This message has been sent to the Squeak list, and CC'd to Andrew C. 
Greenberg)