On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 01:49:07AM +0200, Marcus Denker wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 02:25:30AM +0300, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > [Andreas: FSF free doesn't mean my free]
> > Note that the GPL is considered free but it is also specialized. The FSF
> > also considers many other kinds of licenses free, and their definition
> > of free is quite similar to what you would expect (appended below). It
> > doesn't mean you can do anything you want with the code, for that you
> > want MIT/BSD style licenses.
> > 
> What Andreas was pointing out is that we need a license that allows
> us to even built proprietary Squeak based systems with. As you can
> do with Linux. This is really important. 
> 
> (But the APSL does allow that, so it would be ok).

It does?  I don't think so... (reread)

Well, there's several aspects to this.  First, Squeak isn't Linux.  You
said that is important to be able to build proprietary systems "as you
can do with Linux".  But Linux is GPL, and we know that the GPL doesn't
work with SqueakL.  

It seems to boil down to the question of whether Squeak can be
considered a platform upon which other works can be built/deployed
without being considered a Modification of Squeak (and can therefore
be released under arbitrary licences).  This is the sticking point with
the GPL.

The APSL refers repeatedly to file-based distribution of source code.
It is clearly not designed with Squeak's source code model in mind.
On what basis do you conclude that an APSL-licensed Squeak could form
a platform that applications with arbitrary licences could run on and
be distributed with?  It is, at best, extremely ambiguous.  I would
like to hear a laywer's opinion on the implications of the APSL for
distributing Squeak applications under arbitrary licenses.

Joshua


> 
>    Marcus
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de  -- Squeak! http://squeak.de
>