License Issues / base image cryptography
Sean Glazier
sglazier at comcast.net
Fri Oct 21 16:12:34 UTC 2005
I don't think the crypto export problems exist since Cincom exports
everything we do. I checked that out before and those restrictions have been
lifted for now. But you never know what our congress will decide to do next.
These days one has to show a license for over the counter Sudafed and
possession of more than like 5 can get you 25 in club fed. So for now they
are more concerned about the drug war and the war on terror than the war on
software crypto. But like I said that could change since china is bitching
about it. At this point though since the restrictions were lifted it is like
trying to un-ring a bell that has been rung. Not that a politicians would be
stupid enough to try such a thing in the future... but for now we are safe.
Sean
-----Original Message-----
From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Serge
Stinckwich
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 11:45 AM
To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
Subject: Re: License Issues / base image cryptography
Marcus Denker a écrit :
>
> On 20.10.2005, at 23:46, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
>
>>
>> I've read through them but I'm not an expert on licenses. Can you
>> give me
>> your reactions to using either one of these license models for our
>> cryptography packages? What would the general reaction be? Has anyone
>> compared the models enough to tell me the difference between Squeak and
>> LGPL? For LGPL I understood the extra requirements to separate
>> functionality of the package form the applications so that it can be run
>> separately and the source code availability requirements which
>> considering
>> that this is smalltalk and source is always available we can include the
>> license on the class comment to make sure that developers include this
>> notice in their applications. We have not decided to go this route;
>> we are
>> just exploring the options.
>>
>
> LGPL has the problem that it seems to only work for C based system with
> real "linked" libraries. If you add the code of a an LGPLed smalltalk
> framework,
> it could be argued that you are not linking but reusing, thus forcing
> LGPL on the
> complete image. (I think in situations like these, people add a
> preamble to the
> license to explain what they consider to be ok. I think GNU Smalltalk
> did that)
>
> For Squeak, I think we decided to use the MIT license for all new
> stuff, with
> the goal to eventually have everything with that license.
Yes, we have to choose just one licence for all new Squeak development.
MIT is a nice one and you have not the viral problem like with GPL and i
think it's easier for corporate acceptance like Cincom.
Tweak is under MIT, Croquet is under MIT.
Do crypto export limitations outside US still exist ? Or there is no
more problems like that ?
-- oooo
Dr. Serge Stinckwich OOOOOOOO
Université de Caen>CNRS UMR 6072>GREYC>MAD OOESUGOO
http://purl.org/net/SergeStinckwich oooooo
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] \ /
##
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|