LGPL and SqueakMap

Daniel Joyce daniel.a.joyce at worldnet.att.net
Mon Dec 23 07:00:38 UTC 2002


> True.  But what constitutes "application source" is muddy with
> Smalltalk.  I believe that is Andrew's point.  Because of that, I
> personally wouldn't touch GPL code for a Smalltalk image, if it were
> my decision.
>
> However, note that I am talking about LGPL rather than GPL
> (specifically in the context of GLORP having an LGPL license), and
> LGPL has a more liberal license than GPL.
>
> Nevin

I would say the changesets that impliment said code.

A LGPL library can call Kernel functions on a NON-GPL OS. That does not 
require that the source of the OS has to be released too. ( Gnu C libs 
on Solaris )

Likewise, LGPL classes can call code in non-Gpl classes, that does not 
require the source to those non- LGPL classes be released either.

Likewise, a propietary library can call functions in LGPL libraries too 
w/o being LGPL.

So non-LGPL classes can call GPL classes.

The only REAL muddy place I see is the case where someone subclasses a 
LGPL class. Would the subclass fall under the LGPL too, or since it's 
still just calling a LGPL class, and so technically is not a LGPL class 
too.

-Daniel



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list