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
|