> In summary, my original concern, which still apparently stands, is that you
> *cannot* look at LGPL material and copy or adapt it into the Squeak core,

This is exactly what the FSF did *not* say.  They said:

> we see no problem with people
> studying LGPLed code in order to write a different implementation that
> does the same thing.  We give people the source, enabling them to study
> it, without requiring them to accept any license.  The LGPL doesn't have
> any requirements for people writing an independent implementation, and
> that's because it has no teeth it could use to enforce such those
> requirements.
> 
> So if anything, I think if you want to write a new implementation of
> LGPLed code, the best way to do it would be to study the original code
> as much as possible, to make sure that your own implementation is as
> different as possible from the original. 

(back to your message)
> Paolo - stop confusing the issue.  The issue is only what I just stated.  I'm
> *not* talking about stuff in squeaksource or other distributions methods.  I'm
> not talking about dual-licensed stuff because the authors added a
> Squeak-compatible license.

Yes, dual licensing is what the FSF explained to Diego, not to me.  His 
were separate questions, with separate answers.

> I'm only talking about people working on stuff
> that may eventually want to be included in the Squeak core, because this isn't
> separated enough to allow an independent license, even with the clarification
> you gave.

I said exactly that you *need* a rewrite to include stuff into 
SqueakCore.  But I also said that the FSF does not see any problem in 
not doing cleean-room reverse engineering to do such a rewrite.

This is my last message in the thread, I don't believe anything else I 
could say would add and we are clearly boring/confusing some squeakers.

Paolo