It is well known that RMS has a "political" agenda with GPL.
GPL is intentionally designed to be a virus.  RMS won't be
content until ALL software has been infected by GPL.

I personally have to side with the "Squeak-L only" group.
I would recommend that if it isn't available under Squeak-L
that it not be allowed on Squeak Map, and I would encourage
EVERYONE to avoid using non-Squeak-L code with Squeak.

And regarding the "publishing modifications" clause of
Squeak-L, if I understand it correctly, it only requires
publishing modifications of the base classes included in
the image.  I take this to mean that if you create an
application which doesn't modify the base classes (i.e.
anything that was included in Squeak before you started
adding your code), then you are not obligated to publish
your code.  If your application requires modifications
to the "existing classes or methods", then you are only
required to publish the modifications to the existing
classes or methods, not all of your application code.  Am
I reading this correctly?

The only other potential issue I can see with Squeak-L
is that if you intend to "sell" anything you create with
Squeak, you must not include the Apple fonts.  There are
plenty of options for alternate fonts, so I don't see
this as a problem.

				-Dean


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew C. Greenberg [mailto:werdna at mucow.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:07 PM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Closure Compiler
> 
> 
> 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
>