I would recommend dual-licensing the disjunction of Squeak-L (for use 
with Squeak) and LGPL.  Nothing else comes close to avoiding the 
traumatic problems your approach presents.   I can't prevent you from 
licensing the software as you prefer -- that is your choice.  If you 
want it to be useful with Squeak, and modified and incorporated into 
Squeak, however, without violating license or culture -- or worse-- 
this is the only solution I presently see.  Until now, nobody has 
refused the dual license approach (even RMS bought into that for Perl). 
  I will look again at LGPL when I can find some time.  In the 
meanwhile, I disagree that "all we need" is to modify LGPL with 
"suitably precise" new definitions.  The last thing the world requires 
is another ad-hoc open source license.

On Friday, December 27, 2002, at 09:57 AM, Nevin Pratt wrote:

>
>
> Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
>
>> Both GPL and LGPL live in the world of Unix/Windows, comprising 
>> shared libraries and calling code.  Neither translate without analogy 
>> to our application.  There will always be doubt.  This is the >> problem.
>>
>
> Andrew,
>
> Sounds like all we need is a suitably precise Smalltalk-centric 
> definition of "library" and "calling code"?
>
> For LGPL (like GLORP in particular), perhaps we can "modify" the LGPL 
> license by explicitly defining what those two terms mean.
>
> So, for LGPL, what would you consider to be good candidate definitions 
> for those two terms?
>
> Nevin
>
>
>