Squeak and LGPL

Paolo Bonzini bonzini at gnu.org
Sun Feb 3 18:14:47 UTC 2008


Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>> "Janko" == Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek at eranova.si> writes:
> 
> Janko> Randal, please! First, why the heck we as Smalltalkers need to obey by
> Janko> the word that damn licenses if even FSF hinted clear enough, that it
> Janko> should be treated LGPL by the spirit, that is by intent and meaning of
> Janko> the license.
> 
> Precisely because it's *only* a "hint", and not legally binding.
> 
> What will matter in court some day is the letter of the license, not what some
> random person may "hint" about it indirectly.

This is not a random person volunteering to answer licensing at gnu.org 
e-mails.  It is the FSF "licensing clerk" that answered me.

I'm impressed (negatively), more than by a protective attitude which I 
find after all understandable, by the way people manage to read only the 
downside of what was written.  For example, Laurence wrote:

> What they said was that they "don't have teeth" which allows them
> to find teeth in the future.

The way I read this is that *unlike some proprietary licenses* the LGPL 
doesn't have such teeth.  And anyway, the LGPL *as is now* doesn't have 
teeth, and licensing changes for GPL and LGPL are *not* retroactive. 
What is now distributed under LGPLv2 or v3 will *never* gain such teeth.

(I said this last point only to clarify a common misunderstanding on the 
"or any later version" clause used in licensing under the GPL.  It is 
not about the Squeak vs. GNU Smalltalk debate).

Paolo




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list