On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 01:41 PM, Simon Holgate wrote:

> >Also, the GPL is especially viral when applied to an image-based
> >system like Squeak.  You can compile something with GCC and the
> >resulting program need not be released under the GPL.  It would appear
> >that even Richard Stallman agrees that this is how it should be, since
> >he wrote both GCC and the GPL.  If Squeak were released under the GPL,
> >it would be virtually impossible to use it to develop non-GPLed
> >programs.
>
> I'm not quite sure what the problem is still. With Squeak the whole of 
> the source code is distributed and I give my permission, through the 
> GPL, for anything I contribute to be distributed along with it. It 
> does however mean that you cannot use my portion of the code for any 
> program which does not include the source code WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. 
> That is very important. It means that anyone can freely use my code 
> without asking me unless used in a proprietary system. You can make 
> money out of my code without asking me, as long as the source code is 
> included. I think that is fair. I can also, at my discretion, 
> relicense my code to you for use in proprietary programs. You just 
> have to ask. No problem.
>
> With Squeak, surely all that you have to do is not use any methods of 
> classes covered by the GPL for a closed product without permission. I 
> don't see what is wrong with that.

According to RMS, can't even distribute non-GPL code mixed with GPL 
code unless the entirety of the image is GPL.  While a reasonable 
advocate might disagree with RMS and Eben as to the scope and effect of 
GPL as applied to Squeak, their "interpretation" is by itself a pretty 
persuasive argument that the license is unworkable for Smalltalkers.

> >I haven't been following the JPEG situation, but what good can the GPL
> >do to ensure freedom of use in this case?  Patents and copyrights are
> >quite different.
>
> Sure, a copyright is different from a patent. If I release my code 
> under the GPL though, it is made quite clear that I won't try and 
> charge for the code's use in the future (as long as the source code is 
> released etc, etc). The point of a patent is that you own something 
> (intellectual property in this case) that you can license for use as 
> you wish.

The truth is far more interesting.  The fundamental difference between 
copyright and patents is that copyrights do not protect the functional 
structure of a program, and you can always reimplement "in your own 
words" without reference to the original.  You can only violate 
copyright with a copy or derivation.  With patents, you don't even need 
to know that the patent exists to infringe.  As you put it:

> That said, if I implement some idea that someone else already owns a 
> patent on, I am not able to prevent later problems regardless of 
> whether I release my code under the GPL. If I was unclear on that 
> point, I apologise.

> >If I'm not mistaken, you are again implying that use of the GPL might
> >help ensure freedom when faced with aggressive patent holders
> >(probably Microsoft in this case, since they claim to own IP covering
> >vertex programs)
> >This is simply incorrect.  Am I misunderstanding you?
>
> As I said above, it doesn't protect against patent holders, but it is 
> an assurance that I won't seek a patent claim on my work which I am 
> licensing to you. I'm not Microsoft bashing. They are by no means the 
> only company who hold software patents.

Neither GPL nor Squeak-L adequately addresses the issue of patents.   
Ironically, it is the quasi-proprietary viral licenses, such as APSL 
and Netscape that have started to touch on those points -- and they 
have been savaged by the "free software" ideologues for their approach.

> >PS  I happen to be a fan of the GPL, just not for Squeak
>
> I'd like to know under what circumstances you feel that the GPL would 
> not be suitable for Squeak though.I may have missed something.

I am an IP and Patent lawyer.  After a careful analysis, and extensive 
discussions with FSF and RMS on the subject matter, it is my present 
view that GPL is unsuitable for use with a monolithic object image 
system unless all code of that system is to be GPL'd.  While LGPL can 
be made to work for things like plugins, GPL simply is "too viral" to 
work in an open community such as ours.