Andrew Greenberg wrote:

> > Objective-C has exactly the same issue, and there doesn't seem to be
> > any confusion with it and LGPL.
> 
> Fundamental differences between Objective-C code and Smalltalk is the 
> presence of the monolithic image.

But that issue is a non issue if you don't use images to distribute your
Smalltalk code, correct?

> There are no libraries in Smalltalk.  There are images of objects.

I suppose that depends on how you define a library.  If a library is
nothing more than some unit of code that can be used by other units of
code, then sure, Smalltalk does have libraries.

The LGPL defines "library" as such:

 A "library" means a collection of software functions and/or data
prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs
(which use some of those functions and data) to form executables. 

But the LGPL's use of the term would imply that they were intending to
apply it to C libraries.  I would liken change sets to libraries, and
images to executables if I were attempting to apply the LGPL to
Smalltalk code.  But given that the LGPL was not written with Smalltalk
code in mind, I wouldn't consider using it.  I would either: a) attempt
to generalize the wording of the LGPL, or b) write an entirely new
license that accomplishes what I am after.

What would be useful (I think) is a license that talks in terms of
general concepts such as units of software code, direct translation of
that code into alternate forms (i.e. machine code), re-use by other
units of code, re-distribution in source and/or translated form, etc.

- Stephen