Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:

>
>
>> In Objective-C, an external library is roughly analagous to a 
>> Smalltalk change set.
>
>
> Rough analogies are a dangerous way to proceed when we are discussing 
> legal consequences of software development.


Granted.  And a very good point.

> Ultimately, the mode of distribution of the initial source of viral 
> code is not meaningful or useful in analyzing the difficulties of the 
> LGPL in Squeak.  Loading the code into a monolithic image, we now have 
> a mix of code in that image, and the question is how much of the image 
> becomes virally infected thereby.
>
> This is the fundamental difference between Objective-C code and 
> Smalltalk with respect to licensing. 


Don't agree.  While I agree that the monolithic image blurs the 
distinction between development time and runtime (because it's *all* 
runtime with Smalltalk), during runtime the concept of the "object 
space" from the point of view of the executing program is identical 
between Objective-C and Smalltalk, and their respective capabilities are 
very close to being identical.

What I perceive to be your interpretation of GPL and LGPL is that for 
Smalltalk image-based code, there is no difference between those two 
licenses.  I could be mistaken, but that is the impression that I get 
that you are saying.  And, that's what I don't agree with.  There is a 
difference between those two licenses for Smalltalk image-based code. 
 No, I don't believe I can accurately illucidate the boundaries and 
differences between those two licenses for Smalltalk image-based code, 
but I firmly believe those two licenses have differences for Smalltalk 
image-based code (for that matter, not every Smalltalk implementation is 
image-based: ObjectStudio and SmallScript being notable exceptions).

And I also feel that you are correct in raising the flags that you have 
raised.  But I feel that your interpretation that there is no difference 
between those two licenses for Smalltalk image-based code to be an 
overreaction, and inaccurate.  Of course, I could also be 
misunderstanding what you are saying, too.

In regards to the FSF clearing up the confusion, probably a simple 
question of "what is the difference between GPL and LGPL licenses in 
regards to Smalltalk image-based code" would suffice.  I'm inclined to 
think that their position for GPL will be that the entire image would 
need to be GPL'd.  But their position for LGPL will be something a bit 
less restrictive, whatever that happens to be.  And it is that 
difference that would indicate the boundaries.

Nevin