Ken Causey wrote:

>Maybe I've just missed it, but it seems to me before we get into putting
>a new license together we need to better define the goal in doing so. 
>Looking back at this thread in the archives it all seems to have started
>with Nevin noting that he didn't care for the description accompanying
>the LGPL license on SqueakMap.  Now we seem to be on a discussion of
>either creating a new license or somehow forking the LGPL.  Why?  
>

The issue is that for GLORP, for various political reasons, we are stuck 
with LGPL for the time being.

But as suggested, I think we could tighten the GLORP LGPL license by 
explicitly defining the terms "library" and "calling code" to be more 
Smalltalk-centric, thus eliminating some element of doubt about the 
usability of the license.

Nevin