Bijan Parsia <bparsia at email.unc.edu> said:
>> They redistribute just the parcel, not linked with non-GPL code. Squeak
>> doesn't have such a mechanism (yet), 
>
>Change sets?
>
Oops. I'm so into publishing modules and projects over the Net, that I totally
forgot that you can write a change set to your local drive ;-). 

>Can I distribute a bunch of c files, some gpled, some proprietory that
>someone else *can* compile together, that I *intend* for them to so
>compile? They aren't linked at point of distribution.
>
If you make it two tarballs, I think you can. 

>While "code" contributions will best, I think, be licensed by Squeak-L, I
>do wonder about "content". I.e., if Squeak is to be a kind of
>"player" for "active content" we should want the widest possible licensing
>possibilities.
>
>Of course, if not being actually loaded in the image at point of
>distribution is sufficent, yay. But image segments seems sorta of like
>DLLs rather than "non-linked" bits. I *clearly* don't know :) And I
>*should* after reading the FAQ :)
>
Well, there are two kinds of image segments - one is just a swap-out, and I'd
call that linked to the image; the other one is a real export, and that I'd
call not linked to the image. Or? 

For the latter one, and that's the stuff that's being published as 'content'
(ugly word...), I'd say pretty much any license will work. 

Another thought: in a way, Squeak is an OS and the image is its filesystem.
Now from that POV (I'm not sure whether it would hold up in court, but it's
interesting) try to define linking, derived works, and whatever...


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