Ok, so we shouldn't use licenses designed by people that think "IP" is a
weapon (whether for freedom or for control).

Most DFSG compliant licenses don't have this kind of problem. Do you see
a problem mixing BSD, MIT, APSL... ? Squeak-L, though not perfect,
doesn't seem to me to have this specific kind of problem. Am I wrong?

Daniel

"Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> Be careful about the suggestion that we can survive well with a 
> Squeak-L main distro and various distributions under other licenses.   
> This probably (almost certainly) isn't so.
> 
> Some licenses (Squeak-L and GPL, for example) do not mix, and using one 
> licenses for a distro and another for distributed code, however 
> comforting it may make one feel "technically speaking," is legally a 
> recipe for disaster.  While some of my lay colleagues on this list 
> disagree with me on this point, I can only suggest that a Squeakmap 
> comprising incompatible licenses distributed for inclusion in the 
> monolithinc image is a killer problem.
> 
> We have looked into this before, tried to negotiate with FSF for a 
> compromise, and it is presently their position that loading code into 
> our image is NOT legally equivalent under GPL to loading an application 
> onto a computer with an operating system -- indeed, he goes further, 
> considering it to be the same as merging libraries into a single app.  
> I have spoken with RMS on this myself, and he is not sanguine about 
> letting things lie -- he doesn't want images to be mixed unless they 
> are all GPL, and he considers the entire image to be GPL'd by the 
> loading of a GPL package into the image.  (He feels similarly about 
> programs using GPL'd dynamic libraries on an operating system with 
> applications not GPL'd, by the way.)
> 
> Like it or not, we have a problem -- it will not go away just because 
> we wish it to be so.
> 
> Please don't do this folks.  We have enough licensing issues already.  
> Promiscuously cross-licensing like this could kill either SM or Squeak, 
> or both.
> 
> On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 11:45 AM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se 
> wrote:
> 
> > Travis Griggs <tgriggs at keyww.com> wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> >> As a Squeak list lurker... I find it entertaining that there is
> >> widespread recognition that there has got to be a "better way" than 
> >> the
> >> monolithic image, but at the same time there is a drive to apply a
> >> monolegal license. Ironic, don't you think? Squeak should just be a
> >> distro. Otherwise, you're going to be having flamewars about whether 
> >> it
> >> should be called SmaCC or Squeak/SmaCC (aka Linux vs. GNU/Linux).
> >
> > I don't agree. The current discussion is more like the DFSG in Debian
> > (Debian Free Software Guideline). We aren't talking about Squeak
> > packages in general - those can be under whichever license they like -
> > see SM.
> >
> > We are talking about "Squeak official". Our common ground. The artefact
> > that we maintain together. I would say it is very natural to keep that
> > under ONE license - all other similar projects I have seen do the same.
> > And currently we are forced to Squeak-L for that, even if most of us
> > would like to move in a more BSDish direction.
> >
> > The distros (Squeak official + a lot of other packages) are probably
> > soon appearing too. (we need a better SM first).
> >
> > regards, Göran