Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

> Paolo> 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.
> 
> And where is the formal document amending the LGPL to permit this?
> 
> "derived work" is a broad term, and the FSF must specifically waive its rights
> to that.  If I *look* at GNU code, then write something similar, that is
> arguably "derived work", and therefore subject to GNU licensing.
> 
> I don't see that anything has changed, except that we have an "understanding"
> that is not legally binding.
> 
> Let's make it legally binding, and then (only then!) has something changed.
> 
> Until then, *DO NOT LOOK AT GST*.

Randal, please! First, why the heck we as Smalltalkers need to obey by 
the word that damn licenses if even FSF hinted clear enough, that it 
should be treated LGPL by the spirit, that is by intent and meaning of 
the license. And this one is clear enough for me from the FSF answers. 
So, Randal, if you'd like help us Smalltalkers, what I believe is your 
honest intent, better let us help cooperate without such bloody lawyer's 
obstacles.


Janko



-- 
Janko Mivšek
AIDA/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si