> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Raab
> 
> IANAL, but to me this seems utterly simple: You release it under the terms
> of Squeak-L not as Apple Computers Inc. Or, more Squeaky:
> 
> 	Squeak-L copyReplaceAll: 'Apple' with: 'The Owner'.
> 
> Try it ;-)

Of course, it talks about fonts and other things that aren't directly
applicable in my case. Also, what about the text of the license itself? Is
that copyright by Apple? 


> > I don't mind the idea of making your modifications available
> > for others to use, but since there are no definitions of terms
> > like "modification", someone could argue that by performing
> > a garbage collection you are modifying a method --
> > before the method had a bit pattern of x, but now it has a bit
> > pattern of y; clearly the method was modified.
> 
> Excuse me, but honestly isn't this a tad overboards? 

Where do you draw the line? For example, what if I build an optimizing
compiler that is not based on the image's compiler and I recompile every
method in the image? Or, what if I execute "(Object compiledMethodAt: #->)
objectAt: 2 put: #key1:value:"? Both of these change the method's bits, but
do not affect its source code. What if I just add a comment to a method? It
doesn't change the methods bits (with the exception of being in a different
location and a different hash), but it does change the method's source. What
if I used Squeak methods for base classes in my own Smalltalk? For example,
I'm building a .NET Smalltalk compiler, the compiler is written in my .NET
Smalltalk. If I used Squeak methods, would I have to post my .NET Smalltalk
under the Squeak license?

BTW, I did evaluate the code above. By including it in this email, it should
be available for download from a website. By using the code you agree to the
license in Exhibit A in the following page
http://www.squeak.org/license.html :-).


> I mean if you go as
> far
> then any OS-loader which loads a library (and _will_ modify addresses by
> doing so) would create a "modified derivative works". Which effectively
> means that Windows is GPLed as soon as I start Cygwin, right? 

No, it could mean that you are violating the Windows license and the GPL
when you start it up though, and that the Microsoft lawyers will soon be
contacting you :-). The Windows license doesn't give the right to sublicense
it. If I recall correctly, the Windows XP license doesn't give the right to
run a VNC server on it. However, I can download a VNC server that runs under
XP.


John Brant