<goran.hultgren at bluefish.se> said:
>would give the copyrights to the company). The copyright holder decides
  nitpick: "The copyright holder may decide..."
>to let licensees use the software under a license.
>
><b>Q: What licenses can libraries be under that I link in my
>plugins?</b>
>
A: Any open source license except the GPL (and similar viral licenses).

><b>Q: What licenses can libraries be under that I call from FFI?</b>
>
A: Any open source license except the GPL (and similar viral licenses). 

I think it is necessary for the FSF to state whether either action will be
interpreted as 'linking' before recommending anything wrt the GPL. Of course,
most libraries nowadays are LGPL'ed, which doesn't have the problem.

><b>Q: Is Squeak certified to be OpenSource by the
>*OSI*http://www.opensource.org*, ie has SqueakL been approved by OSI as
>an OpenSource license?</b>
>A: No.
A: No, but we're working on it. (update: no feedback yet from OSI). We are
working both on getting OSI approval on SqueakL (or at the very least an
analysis of the painful points), as well as thinking about / being busy with
(ask Alan) talking to Apple to relicense Squeak under an OSI approved license
such as Apple's own public license.

>Q: SqueakL compared to the license of Java, what are the main
>differences?
>
Java is not open source - Sun talks about "community source", where you can
only share code with other licensees.

Nice work, G"oran!

-- 
Cees de Groot               http://www.cdegroot.com     <cg at cdegroot.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD  1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B