On 10/21/05, Ron Teitelbaum <Ron at usmedrec.com> wrote:
> One of our members suggested that we contact Cincom, which we did.  We asked
> if a port of Cincom code was possible, and we received a positive reply.

That'd be great, because VW contains everything up to a functioning
SSL implementation (I never understood why they took the trouble to go
that far, but hey, it's cool and if they want to share it... ;)).

>They would prefer LGPL or the Artistic License for the code that
> we port from them directly.
>
I think the Artistic License is the most free, and a quick read
doesn't show any glaring problems. For a non-base package LGPL would
do just fine. Richard Stallman narrowed LGPL's scope for GNU Smalltalk
to a workable definition of 'linking', etcetera, which means that
chances that the FSF will come down and hunt you (on who's behalf
anyway?) are slight. For a base package LGPL would IMO still be fine,
but people are likely to object.

I think Artistic is in spirit quite close to Squeak-L, but IANAL etcetera :)

Personally, for getting access to that large volume of crypto code,
I'd be happy with either.